The United States has been officially defining marriage for a relatively short period of time, mainly since the Civil War. Marriage licenses have been used by the State to tell people who is and who is not allowed to marry. Originally, it was to keep whites and blacks from marrying, but also homosexuals, and even people whom the State decided would not produce good enough children. This movement (including all 3 of the above categories) of course, is called Eugenics. It is pure evil, and was made infamous especially by the Nazis, who desired to create the ultimate race. This alone should give everyone pause.
BUT WHO CARES WHICH
MARRIAGES ARE LICENSED BY THE STATE?
1. A marriage license
grants you certain tax exemptions.
The real issue here is
taxes, not homosexuality, or any other kind of union that is rejected
by the State. Because the State is pilfering, everyone wants to try
to keep as much of their wealth as possible out of the hands of the
State (except for those who are voluntarily donating to the State
because they don't believe they are taxed enough...anyone else hear
crickets?). Taxes are legalized theft. The Supreme Court of the
United States even agreed on this point concerning Federal Taxes,
until they later changed their minds.
2. People discriminate
against homosexuals until the State forces them not to.
The private property
paradigm mandates that a property owner has authority to administer
the use of that property in any way, so long as it does not infringe
on someone else. Refusing to allow someone onto my property is NOT
infringing on his private property rights. Forcing me to
allow someone onto my property IS MOST DEFINITELY
infringing on my private property rights. This is not a pro- or
anti-homosexual issue at all. It simply requires an understanding of
private property. For
example: If a store owner refuses to let me into his store because I
am a Christian, he should legally be allowed to do so. Furthermore,
he should not legally have to provide a reason to anyone.
3. What is taught to our
children in public schools?
Public schools encapsulate
the idea of legalized theft as well as any other institution. "You
over there must give me your money to pay for that child over there,
or I will take your house from you." That is the problem. If no
money were stolen to pay for anyone's education, there would no
longer be these enormous fights over "what they're teaching kids
these days". Everyone would simply choose for themselves what is
best for their family.
4. Who should be allowed
to have/adopt/raise children?
This is definitely the most
difficult question, but it is still a question of State power. The
State should not be the one who has adoption agencies - just as a
reminder, it needs to steal from people in order to maintain them.
Each individual private agency would have jurisdiction over who can
and cannot adopt children over whom they currently have guardianship.
There are other issues here about why there are so many foster
children, which could entail a million other articles, so I digress.
CONCLUSION
The State should have
nothing whatsoever to do with marriage. The definition of marriage
and marriage licensing is an issue to those who are excluded because
of other underlying State abuses. These are the things which
we should discuss. Christians would do much better at loving people
who do not follow the dictates of the Bible if they fought State abuse instead of trying to
use government to get people to follow God's laws.
4 comments:
I do not think that the "real issue" for many/most homosexuals is a tax status issue. It may be some part of the story for some couples, it may be almost irrelevant for some.
I would guess that for many/most homosexuals (as well as for many non-homosexuals who are supporting the cause), the "real issue" is one of "rights". The argument would be: Heterosexuals have the "right" to marry within certain parameters. If homosexuals cannot be granted the same right under the same parameters, then discrimination is endemic in our government.
And so I'd like to see the debate over what kind of "right" marriage is. Is marriage, in fact, a civil right? If it is a civil right, then how can the state declare that certain civilians are not permitted access to it? I really cannot fathom an argument against same-sex marriage that allows marriage to be defined as a civil right. And if marriage is a right and not a privilege, why do I need a license to begin with?
But the tax status argument moves marriage from the realm of being a civil right into the realm of it being a privilege. One of the benefits of the privilege is a certain tax status that may be financially beneficial. We all know that practically speaking marriage is very often seen this way. Perhaps this is why we have heard very little lately about the inequality of access to the tax advantages of marriage. We've been hearing about it as a civil right.
Many elderly couples choose not to marry because of how the change in status would affect certain of their benefits. So what do they do? They cohabitate. They are effectively married without the civil recognition. If marriage is simply a right, how odd for so many people to voluntarily surrender their right!
Also, just as in other privileges granted by governments, marriage requires a license.
So there is groundwork and precedent for understanding marriage as a privilege instead of a right.
And so if marriage is a privilege, and if same-sex couples do not have access to it, then we find ourselves back in the discrimination argument again, this time over privilege instead of rights.
However, even if the tax advantages of marriage had been removed a long time ago, I don't think it would have affected the pressure on this cause. I am convinced that marriage is being seen as a civil right, and that this particular population believes it has had that right withheld from them.
And honestly, I cannot fathom an argument against it that makes any sense. The state is obligated to adjudicate its rights and privileges with justice. Can it really be considered a civil injustice for same-sex couples to marry? Again, we are not arguing theological justice, we are talking about civil justice.
Now here is the real dilemna: If marriage is IN FACT a civil right, and if a particular church declares that it will not marry same-sex couples, can that church be punished by the government for practicing discrimination against someone's legal civil rights?
It is an important question to decide if marriage is a privilege or a right.
There are many other questions, too, that I find interesting.
For one thing, how will individual states respond to the Federal government dictating how it licenses marriages? This could be fun to watch!
More interestingly:
How should a church which despises both same-sex marriage as well as divorce advise married same-sex couples?
Does the church actually marry?
And if you are very brave (and want to spend hours down a rabbit hole), if we were to truly adopt God's standard for what defines marriage and attempt to apply His definition into the civil realm, what in the wide world of sports would that even look like???
If you and I sit down to talk about this, I would love to address everything you mentioned. For the time being, I'm going to focus on just a couple of them.
I totally agree with you that the issue in most people's mind on both sides of the fence is one of 'rights'. I also agree that the debate, therefore, should center around what that right means. What are the effects of having the right to be married, and who should be granting this right? In fact, addressing these two issues (especially the first) was the very purpose of my article.
So what if someone has the right to be anything if it has no actual effects? Removing the four effects I mentioned (along with others I haven't yet considered, I'm sure) makes the marriage license meaningless in this sense, whether for homo- or heterosexuals.
Asking the question of whether a church should or will be coerced into marrying someone is an issue of private property. Any private organization should have the legal right to maintain whatever rules it likes. The homosexual church should not have to recognize my marriage, nor should a theologically conservative church have to recognize a homosexual marriage. Furthermore, one church refusing to marry a couple does not prohibit that couple from being married by some other church...perhaps even an exclusively homosexual church for that matter. Therefore, no rights have been taken at all.
In fact, if you wanted to take a dog and a cat and take it to some animal shelter that keeps a person with a collar who "marries" animals, that should be allowed too, silly though it may be. Nothing would come of it except that the owners would now view these animals as married. This is why it is the effects of the State recognizing marriage which is more important than who has the right to be married.
I have to think about this, but just off the top of my head, I don't know how much in favor I am of having a church argue from the standpoint of "private property"... Something about it doesn't seem quite right.
I understand what you mean. I'm mainly pointing out that there is no way a church should be forced by the government to perform a ritual on someone.
Secondly, whether or not a church "recognizes" a homosexual marriage should be irrelevant to government policy.
The converse of these is true as well - no organization should be forced to marry a heterosexual couple, nor does is matter if any sort of non-Christian organization recognizes a heterosexual marriage.
Post a Comment