The wienerboard's a cool place to talk politics. But sometimes it can get a little hairy. Makes you want to go to the wrestling forum. The politics forum feels like Raw sometimes.
We're talking constitutional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage right now. Dubya's for it. I got my reservations, so I thought I might cross post a little from the Wienerboard
It's a vital issue for me. A Family is not two dads as far as I and many others are concerned. Or two moms.
My problem is that some government entity approving and paying for that approval is a reduction in taxes that I think ought to be reserved for real couples. And play the black/white racial thing any way you choose - but homosexuals aren't a different race - they are choosing a behavior that has, historically, been aberrant. Now you may say it's genetic, or OK in your eyes or whatever. Cool. Go for it. But this isn't on the level of racial issues and if you play it that way, then it's a slap in the face to the real struggle people like MLK went through. So, no, I don't believe that homosexual partners ought to be legally married.
But I understand legal rights and all the rest of the life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. And I am all for that. If people want to be with someone of their own gender, that is their choice. And, like I have to, living with someone of a different gender, they will have to deal with any resultant consequences.
So how to deal with the marriage thing. It is primarily, although not exclusively, a religious rite. So I would get government completely out of the marriage game. Not issue licenses, not recognize any resultant tax differences between single and non-single partners. Everyone who wants to be "married" or "Partnered" or whatever they want to call it would go to a church, or to a lawyer or maybe to a local marriage house. And there would be a ceremony, and perhaps a contract and maybe some pictures and a reception. The SAME THINGS we have now. But the government would not be involved.
Then if a church wanted to allow homosexuals to marry, then they would perform the service. If the folks wanted to get married in a civil ceremony, I am sure the entrepreneurs of the world will set up marriage houses. It seems like a solution that would be acceptable to me, who would oppose marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman, and it would seem that it would be acceptable to those that think marriage should be redefined. Because then, if I opposed said marriage, but my church consented to perform it, I could, if I chose, to leave my church and find another which held beliefs closer to the ones I personally hold.
And insurance companies could choose how dependents were defined and companies and individuals that use said companies could select the plan or plans most acceptable to them.
and, gosh, we could all be free, instead of having some fool in Washington decide what marriage is.
So, I point out that I am morally and fiscally and religiously conservative. I oppose a constitutional amendment to redefine marriage. Let's just get the government out of marriage.
AWArulz
We're talking constitutional Amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage right now. Dubya's for it. I got my reservations, so I thought I might cross post a little from the Wienerboard
It's a vital issue for me. A Family is not two dads as far as I and many others are concerned. Or two moms.
My problem is that some government entity approving and paying for that approval is a reduction in taxes that I think ought to be reserved for real couples. And play the black/white racial thing any way you choose - but homosexuals aren't a different race - they are choosing a behavior that has, historically, been aberrant. Now you may say it's genetic, or OK in your eyes or whatever. Cool. Go for it. But this isn't on the level of racial issues and if you play it that way, then it's a slap in the face to the real struggle people like MLK went through. So, no, I don't believe that homosexual partners ought to be legally married.
But I understand legal rights and all the rest of the life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. And I am all for that. If people want to be with someone of their own gender, that is their choice. And, like I have to, living with someone of a different gender, they will have to deal with any resultant consequences.
So how to deal with the marriage thing. It is primarily, although not exclusively, a religious rite. So I would get government completely out of the marriage game. Not issue licenses, not recognize any resultant tax differences between single and non-single partners. Everyone who wants to be "married" or "Partnered" or whatever they want to call it would go to a church, or to a lawyer or maybe to a local marriage house. And there would be a ceremony, and perhaps a contract and maybe some pictures and a reception. The SAME THINGS we have now. But the government would not be involved.
Then if a church wanted to allow homosexuals to marry, then they would perform the service. If the folks wanted to get married in a civil ceremony, I am sure the entrepreneurs of the world will set up marriage houses. It seems like a solution that would be acceptable to me, who would oppose marriage between anyone other than one man and one woman, and it would seem that it would be acceptable to those that think marriage should be redefined. Because then, if I opposed said marriage, but my church consented to perform it, I could, if I chose, to leave my church and find another which held beliefs closer to the ones I personally hold.
And insurance companies could choose how dependents were defined and companies and individuals that use said companies could select the plan or plans most acceptable to them.
and, gosh, we could all be free, instead of having some fool in Washington decide what marriage is.
So, I point out that I am morally and fiscally and religiously conservative. I oppose a constitutional amendment to redefine marriage. Let's just get the government out of marriage.
AWArulz
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home