Comment: The idea of government existing to secure inalienable rights...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Why do you need the (see in situ)

The idea of government existing to secure inalienable rights...

... comes from the Declaration of Independence. Because I do not believe that gay marriage is an inalienable right, I do not agree that government has a duty to "secure" or recognize gay marriage.

I disagree with the modern notion that a marriage is created by governmental authority; for example, I regard the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of "jumping the broom" slave marriages in the antebellum South to be real marriages, even though the Southern states did not recognize such slave marriages as valid. In my thinking, rather than create marriage, government instead recognizes a marriage that already exists. The fundamental reason that government should not recognize gay marriage is not that a gay marriage is sinful or immoral, but that it isn't actually a marriage at all.

Certainly, government-imposed laws, taxes, regulations, etc. involve the use of force. I tend to oppose government attempts to favor certain groups (such as the married) over other groups (such as the unmarried). On taxes, for example, I would rather have a loophole-free low rate rather than a loophole-ridden high rate. Concerning adoption, I would favor the government having little if any role in that at all.

Finally, I do not want the Federal Government dictating marriage policy to the states, so I oppose any prohibition-oriented Federal legislation or Constitutional amendment. I do support DOMA because, without it, "traditional marriage" states would have to recognize gay marriages contracted in "gay marriage" states.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand