From my perspective, as long as the government gives benefits for marriage (which it does), it has a constitutional duty to equally protect all citizens in those partnerships, regardless of sex.
Why do we allow the government to tell us who we can and can’t marry, specifically marriage between those of the same sex. If we give the government the power to dictate marriage based on sex, they could also have the power to tell us we can’t marry someone of a different religion (this is current law in Lebanon and is not an Islamic country)?
Government should not be involved in marriage. We derive marriage from religion, and that’s where marriage should stay (in my opinion). But all together, the government should be out of marriage. Marriage shouldn’t be a tax incentive, it should be a bond between two people who love each other. And that is what marriage has been and always should be.
I found myself in a debate with a friend the other day over how important it should be for gay couples to be able to call their union a legal “marriage” if they still get all the same legal benefits as a straight couple.
I believe that the name is everything, and that by making same sex couples call their union something other than marriage, we are not awarding them equal rights, regardless of whatever tax benefits they may receive. I’m pretty sure we decided in 1954 that “separate but equal” is unconstitutional.
My friend thinks that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a women, and that it is not discriminatory to give same-sex “marriages” a different name as long as there is no difference in their legal treatment.
What is your opinion?
@KellyMartin couldn’t have said it better. Marriage should not be a tax incentive, it should be a personal bond.
The personal should do its best to stay out of politics. Though I may not fully understand my empathy is with those in love of the same sex who have to feel that they are not accepted by the country that they belong to.
I dont like the idea of government having a say in it at all. At least at the federal level the biggest thing that is getting overlooked is their children. Not that homosexuals will be bad parents but how will they be treated by other kids other families? Im assuming the ripple affect will be pretty harsh for the kids, I could be wrong thought.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.