Marraige and Civil Unions
Typically, threads here in regards to anything in terms of homosexuality usually get shut down pretty quickly, no matter who posts it. I guess I'm trying to buck the trend here, and hopefully have some civil discourse in this manner.
The topic is: Marraige and Civil Unions.
As a gay man, I can say that I do, in many ways, support the idea of two consenting adults wanting to marry. However, much of the groundswell of opposition to any "domestic partnership" or "Gay marriage" proposal has been over the "dilution of the meaning of legally supported marriage in America".
However, as a libertarian, I often have a "third way" approach to dealing with an issue.
In my debates with opponents of gay marraige in general, I often use marriage licensing against them. When someone tells me "Allow gays to marry would dilute the meaning of the American family", I usually respond with "Well, sir, that's all well and great, but why is it that a couple, even if they're of an opposite sex relationship, are required to go down to a courthouse, pay a fee to the government, just for the "privilege" of getting married? Isn't government regulation and taxation of what is primarily a religious function considered repugnant to what it means to be a free republic?".
Often, they shut their mouth right then, because they realize, in a deep down inside, that I'm right. Why does the government require marriage licensing in the first place?
At the moment, there are many things dependent on the government licensure of marraige. Automatic inheritance of estate, full claims of tax exemptions, automatic hospital visitation, and many other things that opposite sex couples take for granted. Where government requires a document to prove two are together in marriage, private agencies and court systems make their rules around that, even if the core reasoning behind the licensure in the first place is a bad reason.
Marraige licensing, to me, is no different than CCW licensing. Though, technically, the states and the US Government aren't allowed to infringe and tax a right, they do so anyway, because having a government pass is better than not having one in the eyes of many.
Up until 1967, it was illegal in a few southern states for interracial marrying. This was enforced by the county courthouses who refused to give out marriage licenses because the issuing authority and/or state law forbid it. Though the SCOTUS cleared this issue up, it also brings an interesting point: If marriage licensing has racist origins in the south, why is it still in practice?
The institution of marriage, in my opinion, should be a private one, outside of government licensure. Either the marriage licenses that are given out should be "Civil unions" for everyone, or eliminate or rewrite the various things that depend on the word "marriage" and eliminate government licensure of marraige or civil unions entirely.
That's my opinion, from a libertarian perspective.
Typically, threads here in regards to anything in terms of homosexuality usually get shut down pretty quickly, no matter who posts it. I guess I'm trying to buck the trend here, and hopefully have some civil discourse in this manner.
The topic is: Marraige and Civil Unions.
As a gay man, I can say that I do, in many ways, support the idea of two consenting adults wanting to marry. However, much of the groundswell of opposition to any "domestic partnership" or "Gay marriage" proposal has been over the "dilution of the meaning of legally supported marriage in America".
However, as a libertarian, I often have a "third way" approach to dealing with an issue.
In my debates with opponents of gay marraige in general, I often use marriage licensing against them. When someone tells me "Allow gays to marry would dilute the meaning of the American family", I usually respond with "Well, sir, that's all well and great, but why is it that a couple, even if they're of an opposite sex relationship, are required to go down to a courthouse, pay a fee to the government, just for the "privilege" of getting married? Isn't government regulation and taxation of what is primarily a religious function considered repugnant to what it means to be a free republic?".
Often, they shut their mouth right then, because they realize, in a deep down inside, that I'm right. Why does the government require marriage licensing in the first place?
At the moment, there are many things dependent on the government licensure of marraige. Automatic inheritance of estate, full claims of tax exemptions, automatic hospital visitation, and many other things that opposite sex couples take for granted. Where government requires a document to prove two are together in marriage, private agencies and court systems make their rules around that, even if the core reasoning behind the licensure in the first place is a bad reason.
Marraige licensing, to me, is no different than CCW licensing. Though, technically, the states and the US Government aren't allowed to infringe and tax a right, they do so anyway, because having a government pass is better than not having one in the eyes of many.
Up until 1967, it was illegal in a few southern states for interracial marrying. This was enforced by the county courthouses who refused to give out marriage licenses because the issuing authority and/or state law forbid it. Though the SCOTUS cleared this issue up, it also brings an interesting point: If marriage licensing has racist origins in the south, why is it still in practice?
The institution of marriage, in my opinion, should be a private one, outside of government licensure. Either the marriage licenses that are given out should be "Civil unions" for everyone, or eliminate or rewrite the various things that depend on the word "marriage" and eliminate government licensure of marraige or civil unions entirely.
That's my opinion, from a libertarian perspective.