I have to asks, if the government had no hand in determining who was married or not then would the gay rights issue be as controversial as it is? What I mean by that is this, if you could marry anyone or any thing (a goat for instance or perhaps you fall in love with your fruit salad as Pee-Wee Herman did in one of his episodes) and the government did not have a voice in whether it was “legal” or not then would we be in a battle over what constitutes marriage today?
There are a couple of issues with my line of thought. First, people would still want to adopt or provide foster care to children. Not all agencies would support gay marriage so then what happens? Does it end up in the court system as a discrimination lawsuit? What if the agency is a private group then don’t they have a right to select who they will adopt children out to? Now if the agency is government sponsored then we run into the same issues as what is happening now. So if the government stayed out of the adoption business then couples would simply have to be selective about which agency they went to for adoption opportunities. However, there is a second problem. Legally there are issues that come into play over personal property, real estate, and other shared property in a marriage. How would the courts rule in this case? Would the government have to support the marriage or could the government get around this by acknowledging the covenant that was made between the two consenting adults within their religion or cultural environment? This leads into a third problem. In today’s secular-humanist society what is a gay Atheist supposed to do to get married? In other religions (Atheism is a religion in its own right) the priest, clergy, cleric, etc… conducts the covenant ceremony. Well that is all well and good for those folks within those religions who want to get married but again I ask, what does the Atheist do in this case, even if they are heterosexual and want to marry? Is the government required to do something? I would even venture to ask why the Atheist would want to marry, especially if there was no government or private benefit (whether in money, shared property, insurance at the work place, etc…)? Why do married people get cut a break?
Even the playing field. All people are treated as individuals. Health insurance, car insurance, life insurance, taxes, personal property, etc… should be handled as though everyone is an individual unto themselves. This would remove the desire by same-sex marriage supporters to force all of us opposed to same-sex marriage into believing their lifestyle choice is okay and not a choice. We could both live in the same community and not have to worry about whether I am going to be charged with a hate-crime for disagreeing with someone about their sexual orientation.
My point is this: the less government involvement we have the more CULTURE our society is allowed to possess in various facets. There is already varying cultures but there is also a Big Brother mentality and way-of-life that is sitting in our living room behind the scenes controlling the way we experience our own culture. How is that? Television. Who has approval authority for what you see and what is allowed? The Federal Communications Commission whose job “is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.” Here are a bunch of statistics for you to review and form your own opinion of how powerful a television coupled with satellite, cable, or even converter box rabbit ears can be.
This is just some stuff that I have been thinking about. Other stuff that I keep milling around with is the War on Terror, racism in the 21st Century, home remodeling, parenting techniques, and a few others. Time for bed. Sorry for the delay in posting the past two weeks. I was sick the first weekend I missed and then we were getting ready for vacation (a couple from church invited us to stay with them in Gatlinburg at a rental cabin – totally awesome!).