Solution to Gay Marriage debate: Get the government out of it!

[NavComm]

I'm in full agreement with these posts as well, don't get me wrong. I was more referring to a certain government party that may want to return to this issue if elected into office.

But gays don't need a church to sanction their union in order for it to be a full-fledged legal "marriage". When they go to city hall or whatever and get that marriage license, it's full-on Marriage with a capital "M".

Also, I'd imagine that gays wouldn't want the blessing of a church that doesn't accept them or their union. I know *I* wouldn't. But I know that there are United churches in my neighbourhood that are currently performing the ceremonies for gay couples.

Yes, I agree with your post too. Someone else said, "we can't un-ring the bell" (sorry but can't page back enough to see who said it). I'm pretty sure some politicians would definately like to!

 

[xFusilier]

All the state has to do is recognize and enforce a contract, just like any other contract.  The state doesn't have to decide who may enter into the contract, or what shall be the conditions of the contract.  That would truly ensure equality before the law for all, free of any question of gender or sexuality.[/quote

No it wouldn't because it requires that one be a member of a religion.

 

[NavComm]

No it wouldn't because it requires that one be a member of a religion.

How do you figure that? Right now marriage licences don't require you to be of any religion.  ???

 

[a_majoor]

From Instapundit (since gay marriage is somehow thought to be a prelude to the dissolution of marriage period):

http://www.instapundit.com/

    If two (or three, or four, or five) adults want to live together in "plural marriage" or have a "polyamorous" arrangement, I don't see any strong argument for the government knocking on the door and asking them to explain their actions. But I also don't see that the government has an obligation to give them any recognition or financial support. If your argument for your sexual relationships is based on a right to privacy, don't demand public recognition or assistance.

But why does any relationship produce an obligation on the part of the government to provide recognition or support? It's certainly true, as some other readers pointed out (and as Clayton's linked Mormon story reports) that some polygamous arrangements now are basically welfare scams. But that's a welfare issue, not a marriage issue.

Why indeed?

 

[xFusilier]

How do you figure that? Right now marriage licences don't require you to be of any religion

The arguement is to get the state out of the marriage business, and only have "private" entities legitimizing marriage, hence if the government isn't in the marriage business who, recognizes the civil unions of those who choose not to believe in god?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Those who recognize the civil union (contract) will be those affected by it: employers who pay benefits, for example.

 

[NavComm]

From Instapundit (since gay marriage is somehow thought to be a prelude to the dissolution of marriage period):

http://www.instapundit.com/

Why indeed?

I am somewhat offended by your *tongue in cheek* yee haw reference that we should somehow be opposed to same sex marriage. I'm not getting where you are coming from? Are you snickering at gay marriage as trivial and so not worthy or have i read your post all wrong? Enlighten me.

 

[UberCree]

The anti-gay marriage arguements are getting weaker and weaker by the day.  This could be the crux of Stephen Harpers ability to win, yet some remain fixated on not letting go of their homophobia for the sake of allowing the conservatives to win. 

 

[a_majoor]

1. Gay marriage is a highly politicised subject which in the great scheme of things should not be taking so much time and attention from real issues like rooting out government corruption. If it was not the ambit of the government, (the origional issue of this thread), then it would not be a national "issue" which Paul Martin tried to use in last night's debate (suggesting ending the Notwithstanding clause in an attempt to divert Mr Harper from debating real issues)

2. Many opponents of gay marriage believe this to be a wedge issue. I made that point so the Instapundit post would make more sense, since it did not directly speak to the gay marriage issue.

3. I am neutral on the subject in the sense that it isn't for me to say how people should conduct their lives; I do get cranky when people attempt to tell me how to conduct mine. People on both sides of the debate have not covered themselves in glory, each side wants to use the power of the State to legislate morality (Ban gay marriage, or force religious institutions to perform gay marriage). If the State were not involved, the issue would not be so devisive

 

[midgetcop]

The arguement is to get the state out of the marriage business, and only have "private" entities legitimizing marriage, hence if the government isn't in the marriage business who, recognizes the civil unions of those who choose not to believe in god?

Yeah....but most of us don't agree that government *can* be separated from the marriage business.

 

[xFusilier]

As do I, see my first post in this threat above. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Societies had institutionalized marriage long before significant trappings of government were developed.  The only impediment to getting government out of marriage is that there are people who want to tell others what marriage should be and government is the preferred tool to force one person's preferences on another.  There are plenty of people who supported SSM who won't support, for example, polyamorous marriages.  Those people are as selfish as those who opposed SSM, just in a different way - as soon as the chair is arranged just right in the living room, they don't want anyone else to touch it.

 

[clasper]

Ban gay marriage, or force religious institutions to perform gay marriage

The government is not talking about forcing religious institutions to perfrom gay marriages, and the law of the land only forces the Justice of the Peace at City Hall to perform gay marriages- all other legal marriage performers can make up their own mind.  There is some debate within the various religious institutions about what they should be doing (which is expected) but no one is forcing them to do anything.

 

[NavComm]

The government is not talking about forcing religious institutions to perfrom gay marriages, and the law of the land only forces the Justice of the Peace at City Hall to perform gay marriages- all other legal marriage performers can make up their own mind.  There is some debate within the various religious institutions about what they should be doing (which is expected) but no one is forcing them to do anything.

Agreed.

IMO and if you read what I stated previously, I am not in favour of forcing churches to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone, nor do I think it's anyone's  - other than the particular congregation's pervue -  to decide such things . Churches are like private clubs who make their own rules of membership.

Having said that, I also disagree with the statements that polygamists are just on some welfare grab. I don't know much about polygamists but from what I do know, l  think they are pretty self-sufficient societies. I believe they have several adults employed to sustain the family unit. Tossing polygamists into the mix is a  red-herring IMO and really diverts this thread from it's original topic which is whether or not gov't should or should not decide on same-sex marriages.

I think government is the only one that should 'sanction' marriage. If a couple wants to marry on a beach, backyard, or church (if the church agrees) they would obtain a marriage license from the government and then how the ceremony unfolds would be up to the couple.