She's Right on Marriage

Continuing in the series I started yesterday, the second poll question was “What is the “She’s Right” view on marriage?”

The answers were: She thinks that marriage should be between a man and a woman; She thinks same-sex marriage should not be legal; She thinks same-sex marriage should be legal; She thinks civil unions do the same thing and should be good enough; She thinks the government should stay out of marriage altogether and let churches and individuals work out their own marriage contracts; She hopes to someday officiate the marriage of her gay brother and his partner.

Four people said that I think marriage should be between a man and a woman. This is correct – to a point. I think of marriage in a religious context and in that context, it is between a man and a woman.

Three people said that I think same-sex marriage should not be legal, nobody said that I think it should be legal, and three people said that I think civil unions do the same thing and should be good enough.

To the last one, I agree with that statement only because the rhetoric used by the gay marriage lobby is that they want the same legal protection as heterosexual couples and civil unions do provide that. If that was the sole motive behind the movement – and it’s not – then civil unions should be enough. (Although, Cathy Resmer explains in the comments why civil unions do not offer the same legal protection.)

The most popular answer, given by five people, was that I think the government should stay out of marriage altogether and let churches and individuals work out their own marriage contracts. This answer is correct. As I said above, I think of marriage in a religious context and I do not really understand why the government regulates it anyway. For those who are not religious, they could enter into a civil marriage contract with each other.

The government should not be regulating marriage. It then follows that they also should not dictate who can marry (other than that the persons must be doing so of their own free-will). That includes marriage arrangements that I would never enter into, such as polygamous or homosexual. Even though I believe that God designed the family to have one man and one woman as the parents, I also do not believe that I have a right to force that view on others through legislation.

That being said, my view reflects a perfect world where the government is much less intrusive. That is not the case, as unfortunate as that is.

As far as the current brouhaha over marriage, I do not think the government has the right to redefine marriage in a way that undermines the beliefs of religious organizations. For a better understanding of what I mean, you should read this previous post.

It would really benefit all sides if we banded together to get the government out of marriage altogether, but I do not see that happening because (1) both sides hate working together, (2) the left likes it when the government is powerful, and (3) if marriage isn’t government regulated, then it cannot be used to force religious organizations (and others) to embrace homosexuality. (It would be really helpful if you read this post before you launch into your barrage of hate mail/hate comments, to understand where this is coming from.)

The final question was a trick one. As some of you know, I do have a gay brother. However, he has no plans to get married that I know of. Two of you were stumped.