My personal musings about anything that gets on my radar screen--heavily dominated by politics.
2004-01-07
More On Gay Marriage
I had the opportunity today to re-read the Massachusetts Court ruling from two months ago on gay marriage. A few new points occur.
Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married
Really? Religious convictions? Based on what religious text? No, these people hold no such moral positions--in fact, moral positions are repugnant to these people. This is one example of many in this ruling of arguments thrown in with no basis in fact or argument. Just to highlight the argumentative skills of this Court.
The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry.
So who empowered the Judiciary to act in exactly the opposite manner of the intent of the Legislature? Once the intent of the law is understood, I thought it was the Judiciary's job to interpret, and ensure compliance with guaranteed Rights. The Right to Marriage is not one of these.
Exclusive marital benefits that are not directly tied to property rights include the presumptions of legitimacy and parentage of children born to a married couple.
Yeah, and State recognition of the marriage of two lesbians certainly increases the presumption of legitimacy and parentage of children of the couple. Right.
These are just a few examples of the silliness in this ruling. But the main point for me is this: if the Court decides that the State decides has no role to regulate marriage, than the state should get out of the marriage business altogether.
Here's my point of view. Consistent with my upbringing (as I mentioned earlier), I see marriage as a Sacrament--a Holy Union entered into by two persons with the blessings of the Almighty and facilitated by one of His disciples on Earth. The Grace bestowed on the married couple comes directly from God, and it is that Grace which gives the couple the strength to build a life together. The State has no role in this--its role is strictly licensing. So let the State grant licenses for those rights people wish to share with a partner, but don't call it marriage. The Justice of the Peace is not a representative of God, but of the State, so let him or her say "By the power vested in me I declare the State recognizes this contractual obligation."
"Marriage" is between two people and God. The state would be well served to get out of it and treat any such issue as a strictly contractual situation.
I expect this will draw some ire from some of those on the Right. That's okay--I welcome the debate. If this is to be a hot-button issue, I think we need to get on top of it.
By the bye, in the interest of full disclosure, one of my wife's close relatives is gay, and I have no issue with that and her. However, this relative is not happy, has not been able to maintain a stable relationship, and it seems that that is consistent throughout that community. That may not be the case for all gays and lesbians, but my own observations tend to reveal that there is nothing mainstream about that community that would justify overturning Common Law to accomodate very few who would take advantage of it. | |
|
