|
| |
GAY MARRIAGE
Civil union okay, gay marriage is not acceptable because it is religious and the government has no
business telling the church who has the right to use the churches personal
private property, or what to believe or accept as moral
A church can do what it wants. If a church wants to
accept gay marriage it can, it is their choice not the governments.
The right of assembly is also private and the government cannot tell a church
who must be allowed to attend.
The US Supreme Court made this clear in 2000
Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Rod Rieger agrees with
Ron Paul for the most
part on this issue as do most conservatives.
The real solution to this problem isn't offered in the current debate as it is
framed between Democrats and Republicans. The real solution is to
philosophically change our idea of what the role of government ought to be.
"All voluntary
contracts should be permissible in a free society" -Ron Paul
The problem in the issue of gay
marriage is that the government stuck it's ugly nose in it. Instead of treating
everyone as an individual, the government decided to label people as either
white, black, Hispanic,... male or female,... rich or poor... gay or strait.
whenever you start dividing people up in groups and labeling them you're bound
to trigger resentment between many groups of people and the end result is divide
and conquer.
The government asks people if
they're married or single on the census, in their tax returns, on their drivers
licenses, etc. and then the government uses peoples marital status to determine
if they qualify for certain government benefits like tax breaks, unemployment
checks, hospital visitation rights, etc.
There are many gay couples in this
country who believe they are such a close couple that they might as well already
be married, which is fine because they're not hurting anybody. In their eyes,
the problem is that the government won't recognize their marriage so they don't
qualify for some of the government benefits that strait people do so they have
an incentive to rally, and make their voice heard, and lobby the government for
what they call, "equal rights". Of course, strait couples aren't too happy about
that because they want the benefits for themselves.
The real solution to this problem
isn't offered in the current debate as it is framed between democrats and
republicans. The real solution is to philosophically change our idea of what the
role of government ought to be. The government shouldn't classify people into
groups and divvy out the loot according to those classifications. Instead the
government should treat everyone as an individual. It is not the proper role
of government to decide who is and isn't married. That role is much better left
to churches and families. If two people want to declare that they are married
and their union doesn't hurt anyone else, it should be permissible in a free
society. It's kind of an absurd idea that people need to go ask permission from
the government to do anything. We live in a country where you can't be married
unless you go to the government and get a marriage license. The government
should completely stop issuing marriage licenses altogether and the legal code
should me made uniform to treat everyone as an individual.
It's crazy that everyone seems to be
living in a society where they've come to accept the idea that "you are because
the government says you are"
Just because someone never got a
birth certificate doesn't mean that person wasn't born. Just because someone
doesn't have a government recognized high school diploma doesn't mean that that
person isn't well educated. And just because someone doesn't have a marriage
license doesn't necessarily mean that person isn't married. If your faith says
you're married but your government says you're not, who are you going to
believe.
Try this analogy: What if you were
born and given a birth certificate that says your name is Steve and that's what
it says on all your government documents. Meanwhile you go through your entire
life with the name Jack. All your friends and family call you Jack and nobody
even knows or cares that your birth certificate says Steve. What is your real
name.
Applying this kind of logic to the
issue of gay marriage makes it seem silly that it's even an issue being debated.
Why is government policy a battleground over whether or not people are married
when traditionally, marriage has been an institution of the family and the
church, not the state. If two individuals, gay or strait, really love each
other, and want to make an agreement to spend the rest of their lives together
and have some big ceremony and say that they're married, well whoop-de-do, I
guess they're married. Why should they need the government's permission for that
and why should they get special treatment from the government for that.
Civil union okay, marriage is religious and the state has no business
telling the church what to believe or accept as moral including how many spouses
a person can have.
Civil union is not where the gay marriage supporters stop. Those that support
gay marriage have no problem ignoring the 1st amendment if it gets in their way.
Many lawsuits are being filed to force churches to believe a certain way or pay
the consequences.
In recent years, some states have passed laws giving residents the right to
same-sex unions in various forms. Gay couples may marry in Massachusetts and
California. There are civil unions and domestic partnerships in Vermont, New
Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Oregon. Other states give more limited
rights.
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are
beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them,
claiming that a religious group's view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot
be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, "parachurch"
organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay
couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a
few cases: excerpt from
NPR
In 2006, a Methodist group in New Jersey that rented
out its boardwalk to the public for weddings lost tax exemptions after refusing
to allow a same-sex commitment ceremony.
The church lost the case even though the Supreme Court ruled differently in the Boy
Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) case.
side note: I am not so sure that any organization should get a tax
exempt status.
Comment on the
Rod Rieger Blog
|
Rod Rieger for
Washington State Senate 38th District Position 1
