With all this news surrounding the Same-Sex Marriage debate, I figure I should share my opinion. Hell it's my blog, I can do whatever I want.
My position is definitely not an original one, but not necessarily one of the mainstream viewpoints. I think it's ridiculous that marriage is a government regulated institution. Last time I checked a marriage was generally based off religion. Marriage is traditionally the bonding of two people, under the same faith, that are going to spread their seed and consequentially their religion. Isn't this a country that's suppose to separate the beliefs of church and state.
Not only is this an example of religion's influence on government, but also government's control over religion. People are suppose to be able to practice their religion without the government getting in the way. But government gets directly involved in the practices of a religion when they determine who can get married, and who cannot. Should government really be allowed to determine which religion's marriages count and which don't?
Then what about the growing atheist population? They have no religion and will still be allowed the same "Marriage License" that those of faith get. Shouldn't they only be allowed to get Civil Unions, since they have no religion to officiate their marriage? Why don't all the Christianites ever try to stop these marriages?
Bottom line: I think marriage should be a strictly religious institution and that everyone who wants tax benefits (etc) should be required to get Civil Unions. Granted, then you'll probably have the same arguments made against Same-Sex Civil Unions, but I don't see how it could hold up. In order to have a Civil Union you must be able to procreate? What about those who don't plan, or cannot have children?
4 comments:
Marriage has always been a government institution in addition to a sometimes-religious one (e.g., tax benefits). I mean, people can get married at a justice of the peace in a completely non-religious ceremony. You have it backward. The government is not trying to tell churches to allow same-sex marriages, not at all. It's really the religious right that is exerting its influence on the government to prevent same-sex marriage.
To say marriage was always a government institution would mean government came before religion. This isn't true. Government took over the regulation of marriage, something that almost always had a heavily religious aspect throughout many different cultures. Governments generally took it upon itself to enforce the rules of religions, and base their governments around the beliefs of a religion, something the USA is suppose to avoid.
Fair enough. But as of now, in the U.S., marriage is a legal institution in addition to a religious one. I stand by my original assertion that state governments that recognize same-sex marriage are not saying that every religious institution in the state must also recognize said marriages. They are just recognizing them for legal purposes.
I agree, if a state allows same-sex marriage then no religion should be forced to do it. But to deny some religions the right to marry is unjust. It shows blanket preference towards certain religions. If you abolish marriage as a civil institution, then you no longer have that issue. Government regulated institutions should be Civil Unions, and marriage a purely personal decision.
Post a Comment