Gay Marriage: Why Both Sides Are on the Wrong Side
This is an issue that I find very interesting.
It no longer divides strictly along party lines.
There are core constituencies in each party who don't follow the party line and these factions are beginning to mold the debate.
Although it is nice to see people coming together across party lines, I believe both arguments and most conventional thinking on the subject is wrong and should be refocused.
The liberal argument in favor of gay marriage is framed as a debate about the freedom to choose and inclusion of all.
They talk about fairness and choice and that society is repressing one group in favor of another.
The most convincing arguments, for me, are about the partner being able to be treated as the next of kin.
There are legitimate arguments for the payout of benefits and being able to visit your loved one in the hospital.
I part with this perspective when they push for the government to step in and redefine marriage the way they want it, particularly when it is at the hand of a judge and not by the will of the people, like what is happening in California with the Prop 8 battle.
I'm not saying that the people were right, but I am saying that legislating from the bench is always wrong, whether we like the outcome or not.
The conservative argument is, for me, harder to swallow but is as legitimate to the people who hold those certain beliefs.
I appreciate people believing in something and wanting to protect a tradition that they feel strongly about.
Since most believers think that religion is based on a moral code handed down by God, feeling as though you need to protect something that you feel ownership of, is understandable.
For most religious people, marriage is taking a vow before God and shouldn't be infringed upon by the outside influence of government.
They feel that they should be able to keep it as selective as they want and that government should have no say- which I also agree with.
The problem begins when religious people try to exert their will on government and thus upon everyone else.
Their argument is, essentially, that they need to protect family values from moral ambiguity for the sake of the children.
They want the government to take a moral stand against hedonism that they feel is important for the strengthening of the family and the future of the country.
In my view both of these arguments are wrong, at least in the framework of our representative democracy.
In this context, I would tend to side with the liberals simply on the grounds that in every case, barring hurting another person, I will side with the right to choose.
The premise for their belief is sound.
The only way we can consider ourselves truly free is if we are able to make our own choices, good or bad, without government coercion and influence.
My problem is with their solution.
In a typically liberal fashion, they want the government to come in and fix things.
They want the government to come in and enforce their view because they feel like they know better than the rest.
The conservatives are no better.
They believe that the government should be enforcing morality by limiting our choices to those they deem appropriate.
They are as bad as the liberals when it comes to a solution.
The biggest problem for both sides is that their solutions are the same.
Since they both think that they know better than everyone, they both look for a way to inflict their will on the other people.
In these cases, which are unfortunately most cases, the government can only get bigger and more powerful while discriminating against and alienating a large portion of the population.
The best and most satisfying solution, for everyone, is to remove government from the equation all together.
What I mean is that government should not be in the marriage business at all.
If everyone acknowledges that the tradition of marriage came from religion, why is it appropriate for the government to sanction a relationship based on those same grounds? Don't we believe that the state's view of people and the churches' view are and should be different? They have to be different.
Religion is about controlling people and their actions.
I'm sorry religious people, but that's just a fact.
Everything about religion is intended to dictate your choices and making you compliant to their guidelines.
Although the intent, in most cases, is benevolent, the practice of religion is still about control and manipulation.
Our government, at least in theory, is supposed to protect people from external and unwanted harm, whether physical, financial or otherwise.
The government is not supposed to see any difference between individuals but often does, particularly in the case of marriage.
Why is it more legitimate for a person from a hetero sexual couple to receive someone else's benefits after being married for five minutes than it is for a gay person not to receive those same benefits after being together for twenty years? Not to mention the fact that the federal and most state governments discriminate against these same people, by taking more money from them, by not allowing non-married people to use the same tax write offs.
The government literally penalizes people for not marrying.
Gay or straight, it doesn't matter; if you are not married they take more.
I can't think of any other time when the government favors about half of the constituents over the other, based on a choice that they have made.
Why do we find it necessary to separate the married? What kind of weird laws do we allow? How it is okay for our government to pick and choose their favorite citizens by giving discounts to certain groups for favorable behavior? I think the solution is fairly simple and intellectually consistent with the original intent and proper focus of government, yet would likely never get a fair shake as a legitimate alternative.
The problem with my idea is that it takes power away from the government and those in control and gives it back to the people, who should have it in the first place.
Those in power rarely, if ever, cede control back to the people.
It takes a popular movement and the threat of losing their jobs for politicians to act in the best interests of the people and not for themselves or special interests.
Marriage is seen by the government as a social contract.
But it's a social contract that is only allowed between two consenting adults with opposite hardware.
Why? Why is it important for the government to make that distinction? Shouldn't it be up to the people entering the contract to determine the parameters of the agreement? If they are both able and willing to enter into the contract, why does the government care what sex they are.
If all marriages were considered civil unions and the marriages were left to the churches, we would be able to make most people happy.
Many religious people acknowledge that it is time to recognize the relationships of the gay people around us but don't like the idea of using the term marriage.
Most are comfortable with civil union because they feel like they can hang on to the traditions that they see in marriage.
Most gay people that I have spoken to on the subject don't particularly dislike the idea of a civil union, as long as they are afforded the same privileges that married people get, but they don't like being partitioned off from the rest of the people in their community.
By not allowing the government to marry people, and to move everyone into a civil union, we can accomplish most of the goals of both sides, and restore the government to its proper place as a neutral and blind enforcer of contracts.
If we are to consider real freedom in this case, we should be able to have civil unions with whoever we want.
We could extend the benefits that spouses and family get to friends.
Why should we or the government care who someone wants their benefits to cover or who can visit them in the hospital? I know plenty of people who would keep their family out but allow their best friend in.
Why does it have to be based on romantic love and who are we to tell them otherwise? If any two people want to get into a contract for any reason, as long as no one is coerced, who cares? I know that this is not a conventional viewpoint but it should be.
It no longer divides strictly along party lines.
There are core constituencies in each party who don't follow the party line and these factions are beginning to mold the debate.
Although it is nice to see people coming together across party lines, I believe both arguments and most conventional thinking on the subject is wrong and should be refocused.
The liberal argument in favor of gay marriage is framed as a debate about the freedom to choose and inclusion of all.
They talk about fairness and choice and that society is repressing one group in favor of another.
The most convincing arguments, for me, are about the partner being able to be treated as the next of kin.
There are legitimate arguments for the payout of benefits and being able to visit your loved one in the hospital.
I part with this perspective when they push for the government to step in and redefine marriage the way they want it, particularly when it is at the hand of a judge and not by the will of the people, like what is happening in California with the Prop 8 battle.
I'm not saying that the people were right, but I am saying that legislating from the bench is always wrong, whether we like the outcome or not.
The conservative argument is, for me, harder to swallow but is as legitimate to the people who hold those certain beliefs.
I appreciate people believing in something and wanting to protect a tradition that they feel strongly about.
Since most believers think that religion is based on a moral code handed down by God, feeling as though you need to protect something that you feel ownership of, is understandable.
For most religious people, marriage is taking a vow before God and shouldn't be infringed upon by the outside influence of government.
They feel that they should be able to keep it as selective as they want and that government should have no say- which I also agree with.
The problem begins when religious people try to exert their will on government and thus upon everyone else.
Their argument is, essentially, that they need to protect family values from moral ambiguity for the sake of the children.
They want the government to take a moral stand against hedonism that they feel is important for the strengthening of the family and the future of the country.
In my view both of these arguments are wrong, at least in the framework of our representative democracy.
In this context, I would tend to side with the liberals simply on the grounds that in every case, barring hurting another person, I will side with the right to choose.
The premise for their belief is sound.
The only way we can consider ourselves truly free is if we are able to make our own choices, good or bad, without government coercion and influence.
My problem is with their solution.
In a typically liberal fashion, they want the government to come in and fix things.
They want the government to come in and enforce their view because they feel like they know better than the rest.
The conservatives are no better.
They believe that the government should be enforcing morality by limiting our choices to those they deem appropriate.
They are as bad as the liberals when it comes to a solution.
The biggest problem for both sides is that their solutions are the same.
Since they both think that they know better than everyone, they both look for a way to inflict their will on the other people.
In these cases, which are unfortunately most cases, the government can only get bigger and more powerful while discriminating against and alienating a large portion of the population.
The best and most satisfying solution, for everyone, is to remove government from the equation all together.
What I mean is that government should not be in the marriage business at all.
If everyone acknowledges that the tradition of marriage came from religion, why is it appropriate for the government to sanction a relationship based on those same grounds? Don't we believe that the state's view of people and the churches' view are and should be different? They have to be different.
Religion is about controlling people and their actions.
I'm sorry religious people, but that's just a fact.
Everything about religion is intended to dictate your choices and making you compliant to their guidelines.
Although the intent, in most cases, is benevolent, the practice of religion is still about control and manipulation.
Our government, at least in theory, is supposed to protect people from external and unwanted harm, whether physical, financial or otherwise.
The government is not supposed to see any difference between individuals but often does, particularly in the case of marriage.
Why is it more legitimate for a person from a hetero sexual couple to receive someone else's benefits after being married for five minutes than it is for a gay person not to receive those same benefits after being together for twenty years? Not to mention the fact that the federal and most state governments discriminate against these same people, by taking more money from them, by not allowing non-married people to use the same tax write offs.
The government literally penalizes people for not marrying.
Gay or straight, it doesn't matter; if you are not married they take more.
I can't think of any other time when the government favors about half of the constituents over the other, based on a choice that they have made.
Why do we find it necessary to separate the married? What kind of weird laws do we allow? How it is okay for our government to pick and choose their favorite citizens by giving discounts to certain groups for favorable behavior? I think the solution is fairly simple and intellectually consistent with the original intent and proper focus of government, yet would likely never get a fair shake as a legitimate alternative.
The problem with my idea is that it takes power away from the government and those in control and gives it back to the people, who should have it in the first place.
Those in power rarely, if ever, cede control back to the people.
It takes a popular movement and the threat of losing their jobs for politicians to act in the best interests of the people and not for themselves or special interests.
Marriage is seen by the government as a social contract.
But it's a social contract that is only allowed between two consenting adults with opposite hardware.
Why? Why is it important for the government to make that distinction? Shouldn't it be up to the people entering the contract to determine the parameters of the agreement? If they are both able and willing to enter into the contract, why does the government care what sex they are.
If all marriages were considered civil unions and the marriages were left to the churches, we would be able to make most people happy.
Many religious people acknowledge that it is time to recognize the relationships of the gay people around us but don't like the idea of using the term marriage.
Most are comfortable with civil union because they feel like they can hang on to the traditions that they see in marriage.
Most gay people that I have spoken to on the subject don't particularly dislike the idea of a civil union, as long as they are afforded the same privileges that married people get, but they don't like being partitioned off from the rest of the people in their community.
By not allowing the government to marry people, and to move everyone into a civil union, we can accomplish most of the goals of both sides, and restore the government to its proper place as a neutral and blind enforcer of contracts.
If we are to consider real freedom in this case, we should be able to have civil unions with whoever we want.
We could extend the benefits that spouses and family get to friends.
Why should we or the government care who someone wants their benefits to cover or who can visit them in the hospital? I know plenty of people who would keep their family out but allow their best friend in.
Why does it have to be based on romantic love and who are we to tell them otherwise? If any two people want to get into a contract for any reason, as long as no one is coerced, who cares? I know that this is not a conventional viewpoint but it should be.
Source...