I guess I'm kind of odd for being a member of the so-called 'Christian Right.' But I don't get why anyone would want a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. Isn't that a moral issue? Should our government be making moral decisions? How can we trust our government to make moral decisions?
The Libertarian in me says that if two consenting adults of sound mind want to commit themselves to any sort of contract, let them. So long as they harm no-one else, it should not concern me. If two men (or women) want to commit themselves to each other and a lifetime of increased taxes (good ole marriage penalty still applies), who am I to want to stop them?
For your reading pleasure, I include the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (notice that nothing regarding marriage or other sacraments is mentioned):
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I'm keeping comments moderated, so if you want to see yours, keep it clean. I would also like to remind you that random insults are far less likely to inspire a change to person's mindset than a well thought out response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow!
I'm stunned...someone who claims to be from the Chritian Right with an open outlook on life.
Kate I salute you. If only there were more like you the world would be a nicer place.
What are you talking about? There are so many problems I don't know where to start.
1. Government decides moral issues all the time. There are so many examples of moral laws: gambling, prostitution, age of consent, pornography, anti-discrimination laws, standards for divorce decrees, and the list goes on and on.
2. "The Libertarian in me says that if two consenting adults of sound mind want to commit themselves to any sort of contract, let them." Does this mean you would also allow prostitution? Also, marriage is NOT a contract. The state is involved also.
3. What marriage penalty? Married people get tax benefits, not penalties. All married people should try an experiment. Figure out your tax liability first separately, then figure it out jointly. Almost every time the joint filing will have less tax liability.
4. That's for the US Constitution. The federal government was never meant to have any involvement in family affairs. In fact, federal courts won't touch family law with a ten foot pole. It always has been, and always should be, a state-by-state decision.
Kelly,
I want to thank you for taking time to actually formulate an intelligent response.
In answer to your points. Yes, there are definitely gray areas where the lines between protecting the citizenry and legislating moral behavior become very, very fuzzy. My take on government (especially U.S. Federal Government) is that it's duty is to protect its citizenry. For things such as prostitution, gambling, etc. it is very hard to draw the line between protecting the vulnerable and legislating morality.
You are mistaken regarding contracts and marriage. Marriage is a contract. There are vows made and forms filed. When the union dissolves, the law gets involved. These are all elements of a contract. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, the third definition of contract on dictionary.com is marriage.
Marriage penalty is alive and well (if lessened considerably since my husband and I married a number of years ago). Even today, if we 'lived in sin,' we would pay less in taxes than we do with our salaries combined. You can go here: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96196,00.html and plug numbers for yourself. Don't compare married filing jointly to married filing separately, though. You will want to compare filing single and filing married assuming a dual income family.
I completely agree with point 4. The Federal Government should not touch family law in any way (and that does include gay marriage), not with legislation and certainly not with a Constitutional amendment.
Post a Comment