Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ishmael
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.
|
To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there. |
It goes both ways. Civil because, as you say, marriage is a binding legal contract. Religious because it's considered to be done "in the eyes of God". This holds true whatever god you happen to believe in.
Part of the problem is the question of how marriage came about in the first place. If it was instituted "by God", then the government should stay out of it altogether, and gay marriage becomes a moot point. But it could also be argued that marriage exists solely because of the social need to have two parents of opposite sex to raise the children for twenty years. In other words, it exists simply to force the father to stick around and provide for the family. If that's the case then religion becomes irrelevant, since the need for marriage is a social one. It also means that "benefits" from a job or the government are purely for the sake of raising children, so gay marriage becomes a joke, purely within that context. But if a corporation agrees to pay benefits to a gay partner, that's their business.
If we agree that marriage is for the security of the children, it may exclude gay marriage, but it also excludes the religious, since the civil reasons are obvious. But if that's the case, the religious have nothing to complain about, since their arguments are strictly of a moral nature. On the other hand, if marriage is for religious reasons, then you can hardly have religious freedom while excluding some because their beliefs are different from yours.
Of course the religious don't want to allow gay marriage, because it seems to them to be an acceptance of something they see as morally wrong. But to actively ban such a thing means applying restrictions on a purely moral basis.
I don't like the idea either, but I always have to fall back on my bottom line: Either you have freedom or you don't.