"A constitutional amendment...."

[radmoose]

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do noting at all to protect traditional marriage" - Corretta Scott King

Anyone have an opposing viewpoint that can be articulated with rational thought?

Comments

[jurann.livejournal.com]

I have an opposing viewpoint that is very rational. I do not believe in State marriage laws. IMHO marriage is a covenant between two people which is personal and unalienable, and the government has zero business being involved with that in ANY way. The only valid arguments for State-mandated marriage in this country died about 50 years ago with the advent of modern medical science - and besides that marriage has little, if anything, to do with having children anymore anyway. I would like to see State marriage dismantled in America, and in the case where rights such as Power of Attorney and Benefactors are concerned people should be free to specify those as they please if you ask me. Who's allowed to come see me in the hospital when I'm sick? Whoever I say so or put in writing beforehand, that's who.

America is in love with and has some twisted fascination with Victorian style weddings which used to be a thing that ONLY royalty had. Some folks call that "The Princess Complex", but I see it more as a delusion of grandeur. If you want your church involved, fine; if you want your family involved, fine. But the government and my tax dollars really have no place being involved in the petty squabbles of two people who had some dream of sharing a life together that fell apart because they predictably mismanaged their personal affairs between each other. Fuck. That. Noise.

Rational enough for ya? Tosses the whole premise of gay marriage right out the goddamned window, because marriage is a personal contract between two people for which it is up to them to carry out.

[radmoose.livejournal.com]

OK.. but I don't see that as an opposing viewpoint on the specific quote, but something to support the quote indirectly.

The problem is that the Government got involved in Marriage, as you said. Because of this, there are inequalities that were attached to people who are "married" and those who are not.

If these didn't exist, and marriage was purely between two people as they saw fit, not changing their "status" within the laws, then marriage wouldn't be a Government issue and we wouldn't be dealing with a situation where there are differences depending on that.

Unfortunately, the way the laws are setup, there are major differences between being Married, partners in a Civil Union and being just partners.

The Government has created this, and it is in their best interest to keep it going... FUD and Taxes. =/

[jurann.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree. It was a mistake to get involved, and it would be a mistake to not get out of it. Same as the Iraq war. Small government is better for society, getting between men and women (or men and men or women and women or person and animal for that matter) is not the purpose nor domain of government. If anything at all, that should be a community issue. I truly believe government has no place in the private lives of couples, nor should it write laws preventing larger groups/bigamy/etc.

[radmoose.livejournal.com]

Um, I was kinda being sarcastic in that last statement.

It is one of those things that once they have their foot in it, they don't see the advantage of getting out of it.

I probably should have written it as "..and they feel it is in their best interest to keep it going."

For example, we are still paying "excise tax" on bicycle tires and tubes that was supposed to be abolished a long time ago... it is hidden at the distributor level, but it still exists, as it is seen as bringing in money, and those on the inside want to keep it that way... and yes, we are being taxed (sales tax) on a tax (excise tax.)

My point is that in many things Government have gotten so involved that they can't bring themselves together to get out of it.