Hey, you got your God in my government
Says Bush: : What I do support is a notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I think marriage is between two people who are committed to each other. And from a purely legal point of view, marriage essentially represents a contract. This notion that it’s only for men and women is definitely religiously based. What does it matter to the government if that contract is between men, women, or both?
July 3rd, 2003 at 10:03 am
“I think marriage is between two people who are committed to each other. And from a purely legal point of view, marriage essentially represents a contract.”
A private contract in which the government should have absolutely no say in. Why do we need a bureaucrats permission or endorsement to marry anyone of our choosing?
“This notion that it’s only for men and women is definitely religiously based.”
I am not sure if I agree with that statement but even if I accept it I don’t really think that is relevant to the discussion. I mean politicians do not loose their rights the moment they take office. A persons religious views (pro or con) will almost always influence their decision making process and in a representative republic the people will always get the government they deserve.
By the way, do you consider ALL laws based in morality null and void because they may have an origin in one religion or another?
“What does it matter to the government if that contract is between men, women, or both?”
It shouldn’t and more importantly it shouldn’t matter to the governed Christian or not. I challenge any Christian to find one instance of Jesus trying to enact laws or use force to get his message across. You won’t find an example cause he didn’t and neither should you. You do not have to support homosexuality to be tolerant of the people who are.
Pardon my French but Laissez nous faire!
July 3rd, 2003 at 10:13 am
If it’s not religiously based, where would it come from? Sure, some folks argue that it’s not natural but there are animals other than humans that display homosexual behavior.
And i’m not against legislating morality because that’s what laws do. I’m against using a religion as the basis for that morality because of what it leads to (such as shooting your wife with an AK because she was unfaithful in some parts of the world).
July 3rd, 2003 at 11:00 am
So there are no (nor have there ever have been) any atheists who think homosexuality is wrong? I’ll admit that the concept may have a basis in religion but so does the prohibition of murdering the innocent but you can probably find examples of both in history predating organized religion. Of course I have no proof of either and could quite possibly be full of crap so consider my opinions with tiny grains of salt.
Having just said that I am actually against legislating morality. Laws should be for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of people and private property. Laws should not be used to regulate vice etc.
Also think about what you just said and consider how complicated this really gets. You said, “And i’m not against legislating morality because that’s what laws do. I’m against using a religion as the basis for that morality”
So what is morality based on? Isn’t what is generally accepted as morality based on religious ideas? I realize you can be moral without being religious but morality does have to be defined somehow and preferably with some consistency. If you and I define it differently how can we base laws on it?
And if you can say all anti homosexuality is religiously based couldn’t it also be argued that the American form of government is loosely based on Judeo-Christian values? And if so why didn’t the framers write into the constitution exclusionary rights to heterosexual people or for that matter the right to murder a spouse in cases of infidelity?
July 3rd, 2003 at 4:21 pm
If it is essentially a contract then would a person be allowed to enter into a contract with multiple people be they same sex or not at the same time? Which sounds an awful like like a business in which case could I be considered a corporation which could then work the tax laws to my favor…I’m being to like the sounds of this already …
July 3rd, 2003 at 5:21 pm
The problem is the governments (state and federal) are too entangled in marriage to be able to ‘privatize’ it or to be willing to extend it.
Social security spousal benefits, different tax rates for married and un-married, ‘maternity/paternity leave laws, dependent deductions, guidelines for custody disputes… and many many more things would have to be redone. Whether they got out of the marriage business entirely (which I favor) or extended marriage laws to include gays, it’s going to require a lot of ‘retooling’.
July 4th, 2003 at 7:57 am
Definitely a lot of retooling. Married folks get taxed more. Why would gays want to subject themselves to that anyway? 🙂
July 5th, 2003 at 7:31 pm
OK, let’s make it really simple.
Laws should not be based on morality, but on insuring maximum freedom for the most people while minimizing state infringments on our rights.
Viewed that way, probably 60-70% of our laws remain as is. The other 30-40% consist of the blue laws, drug laws, and marriage laws (including divorce and custody), all of which would either disappear or change dramatically. Considering that most of our prison population consists of folks caught up in one of these catagories, adopting a non-morality based approach to jurisprudence and incarceration would solve a ton of problems.
Of course, nobody want to use that approach because it will require a huge jump in personal accountability, and we simply can’t have that.
Secular marriage should consist of a civil contract between consensual partners, sex and number irrelevant.