Comment: Of course it's unfair, but you're arguing the wrong argument.

(See in situ)


Of course it's unfair, but you're arguing the wrong argument.

recent interview:
Alan Colmes:"As long as there is something in the code about straight marriage the only way to really have equality is to even up the score."

Ron Paul:"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Here's the real argument.
Preferential privileges are being granted to one group but denied to another. What should be done about it? Well here are the options:

1-Continue preferential treatment to one group while denying others
2-Give everyone preferential treatment
3-Give no one preferential treatment

Option 1 is obviously not fair to all parties. Option 2 and 3 are. But if option 2 means I have to, by law, recognize something as marriage that I do not recognize as marriage I would prefer option 3 as the best way to resolve the issue. Take government out of marriage all together. Or in other words take marriage out of the hands of government. Separation of marriage and state if you will.

"Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty." -Ron Paul

If however 2 consenting adults, or more, wish to register their contract with the government so be it. It can include any details about children, visiting rights, property,power of attorney, tax status, etc. They can also apply for whatever benefits that will be determined for such unions. There is absolutely no reason why those same legal advantages currently enjoyed by hetero marriages cannot be applied to a system of civil unions for all. I'm not saying civil unions for gays and marriage for straights. I'm saying only civil unions will be recognized by the government. No government recognition or benefits for marriage at all. Only those who apply for government recognition of their civil union will receive such benefits. Marriage will be a separate private affair between you and your spouse in front of friends,family, God and church, or however you see fit. Just a cultural or religious affair with no recognized legal status, as it should be.

The problem is not that the government has defined marriage in a certain way; the problem is that the government is defining marriage at all. This is an endless war and a needless one. One that will go back and forth, constantly changing hands depending on who is in power forever. It's a needless division and distraction. It will never end if the issue is left in the hands of the government. So take it out of the hands of the government. Remember any "right" given to you by the government can be taken away. Marriage isn't a right the government can rightfully give or deny anyway so they should not be excercising control of it in the first place.

I will never recognize gay marriage as marriage. Some will never stop pushing for universal recognition of it as marriage. It is an impasse. The terms marriage and civil union may seem like semantics to some but it is quite serious and important for those who believe in the sanctity of marriage. Marriage laws were brought into the government at times when the notion of gay marriage was not even a consideration, traditional marriage was unquestioned and there was no problem codifying it into law. Times have obviously changed and I believe now is the time take sacred marriage out of the law books and a more neutral secular term be used for official government purposes.

Marriage should be reserved for private and/or religious purposes. Civil unions can cover the public, business and legal aspect.

One might say doing that would be more difficult than just saying gays can be married too. Well one way is the right way to do it which will end all the contention, and the other is destined to perpetuate the culture war in perpetuity, constantly dividing and distracting us from the real issues. So which is it? What does America want? The quick fix or the lasting fix?