I don’t support legalizing gay marriage

No marriage should be “legal.”

I support marriage equality. Adults who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other in the form of a marriage should be able to make such a commitment. All adults should be able to publicly celebrate their love. Marriage, however, should have nothing to do with legality.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the government should decide what kind of marriage is okay and what isn’t? Isn’t marriage a cultural or religious institution? Or, rather, marriage should be a cultural and/or religious institution.

I suspect marriage fell under government regulation when laws were required to control men’s property (a wife and her property)…? I haven’t researched the history of it, but that strikes me as likely.

The government should have no say in what counts as a marriage.

I support marriage equality.

15 thoughts on “I don’t support legalizing gay marriage

    • Thanks. I feel a bit wobbly because it’s not that I don’t support equal rights in marriage, obviously. The title’s (obviously, again) meant to draw attention… eeek.

          • It is weird — I almost didn’t click because of the headline, but hey, there’s not just one way to draw attention to the issues, and it’s worth having a little bit of misdirection out there for the right purpose.

            • I realized I wrote it thinking about my friends reading it and knowing it’s totally inconsistent of me to say something like that (taken in the way most people might take it, as if I’m against LGBT people getting married), but then other people have visited/read it and I started getting weirded out. Anyway, gonna just leave it. Thanks for clicking through despite what it *could* have been. :-)

  1. Stupid attention-grabbing headline. I notice Ethan on his site proclaimed he’s a libertarian. I’m not there yet. Too many ideally/practicality conflicts.

    • I know… I used to have no problem with attention-grabbing headlines. I’ve got a weird new shyness.

      As for libertarianism, if/when I describe myself as a libertarian socialist (or social anarchist or left-libertarian, all basically the same thing). But the practicality issues are why I don’t go around preaching the good views.

      Thanks for reading and responding. :-)

  2. yes – the legality aspect should concern CIVIL unions for purposes of health insurance, beneficiaries, estates and property in general, protection of children of the union, etc…and MARRIAGE should just remain a cultural/religious celebration, which the government needn’t concern themselves with or strive for some sanctity of marriage or protection of traditional “one man-one woman” type of marriage amendment…so,..I guess I’m agreeing!!

    • Interesting. How to handle those important legal issues…

      Drop health insurance from the list of issues of concern. That’s a ridiculous concept, a horrible business model that consumers shouldn’t accept.

      Property and the protection (care) of children and end-of-life issues. Yes, these things need some governmental regulation… But, why would “unions” have to have anything to do with it?

  3. One of the things the government does in terms of marriage is to ensure that there are some reasonable limitations on the practice. Should the government stay out of it when the leader of a particular religious sect says he wants to marry 50 different women? Or that he wants to take a child bride? These are the types of questions which first spurred governmental interest and involvement in the recognition of marriage this country.

    Opponents of marriage equality often use the “slippery slope” argument – in other words, if we allow gay marriage, then don’t we also have to allow marriage rights to those who practice bestiality and polygamy and incest and pedophilia? The reason those are nonsensical arguments is because all those other activities are radical departures from the current definition of marriage, whereas gay marriage is not. American adults already have the right to marry one other consenting adult of their choice, and gay marriage is simply saying that this right should include those who choose a consenting adult of the same sex. It would not open a legal door towards marriage for any of those other activities at all. But if government gets out of the marriage business completely, however, then the anti-gay marriage proponents might actually end up having a valid point when they say that stuff.

    • As far as I’m concerned, adults should be able to love and commit to each other in any way they see fit. Involving children in any kind of adult-style relationship would be criminal, of course. I also believe there are laws against bestiality?

      In other words, who cares if it’s a slippery slope? There are laws in place to protect those who need protection and if those laws don’t already exist, they can be created.

      Morality (romance/love/relationships) shouldn’t be legislated when it concerns consenting adults.

    • (adding another comment…)

      I’m curious (since I don’t know the history of gov’t involvement in marriage), is “these are the types of questions which first spurred governmental interest and involvement in the recognition of marriage in this country” your belief/suspicion or is it factual?

      • Government recognition of marriage is not needed to validate a relationship in moral or emotional terms. It isn’t legislating love. The only purpose it serves is to clarify what guidelines apply to couples who enter into these relationships legally (someone above mentioned property ownership issues, child custody issues and end-of-life issues, and these are some good examples). Also there are tax issues involved. I know that for some people, a perfect America would not have taxation of any kind. But in terms of current reality, and not theoretical ideals, it is necessary to have limits as to what tax rules apply to married people. How many dependents can one man claim, or how many homestead exemptions, for example? If the government did decide that everyone could have a “civil union”, in order to apply these guidelines to the legal aspects of their relationship, and then forego the whole “marriage” thing completely for straights and gays alike, then I’d be fine with that. But again, current reality is that marriage is a legally recognized contract between 2 consenting adults, and as long as it remains so, I’d like to think that it would apply to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.

        And yes, it is factual that the US government stepped into the realm of marriage regulation from the earliest days of our country’s history, and much of it was due to figuring out how to handle the differing customs of various groups, including polygamist religious sects and Native Americans.

        • Governmental regulation of marriage surely *is* legislating love. If it weren’t, gay people would already be included in who is eligible to join into such a contract.

          It sounds like that’s the case historically, too. “How to handle the differing customs” means how to manage the personal choices of consenting adults.

Leave a Reply