Gay Marriage, the view of the left, using points from the right.

Profile photo of David Fischer 55 By davethemra
June 29th, 2012

By: DavetheMRA

In our great country, you are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion. The right to express and live your life privately in a religious manor. Pray to any god, or to not pray to a god. It’s a fundamental reason why our nation was founded. As the pilgrims came over on the mayflower to avoid religious prosecution, many more followed in hopes of freedom to express themselves.

It could be stated that because of such actions, our nation was founded on religious principals. The people who came here did so of desire to pray and worship the way they wanted, without being harassed by the Church of England, or Spain, or any other governmental religious institute.

The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” from which we can reason, that the government cannot force a religion upon you, nor should the government recognize any religious ceremony as law. Not only does government involvement in religion violate the constitution, but it also increases the scope and size of government. More importantly it elevates specific groups above others, and dictates the private actions and dealings of others.

So, why then does the government recognize the ceremony of marriage? Marriage is a ceremony in most religions practiced in the United States. Not only does it recognize it, but for having gone through this ceremony the government gives you certain benefits. Listed freely on we find an expansive list of benefits that can only be obtained through marriage.

Religious groups claim that gay marriage would damage the sanctity of marriage, Sanctity is defined as: “The state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.” So if marriage is being claimed by these groups as a religious matter. Why does the government recognize it? “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” fits perfectly into this topic. The government needs state that marriage is a religious institution, NOT a legal institution.

Since the government will no longer recognize marriage, nobody can be legally married, correct? Nope. The benefits of marriage include things such as shared risk and investment, and the ability to protect and more readily care and defend for someone you love very much. Simply stated the government should start issuing civil unions between two consenting adults. This leaves marriage to be a religious institution, where a religion can privately decide who can and cannot be married.

5 Comments to “Gay Marriage, the view of the left, using points from the right.”

  • Profile photo of Bill Thomas Bill Thomas says:

    Marriage is a legal construct or union, recognized in all 50 of the individual states. A marriage may be performed by anyone who is authorized to do so by the state, such as a justice of the peace, so the granting of the recognition of a marriage is not limited to clergy. In that sense, it is not necessarily a “religious” institution, although historically it has found root in faith communities because of those communities’ understanding that marriage leads to a stable family home and the raising of children by their parents who are in a committed relationship. (It goes without saying that, between them, a man and a woman have the biological requirements to produce children). Twentieth century tax law in the United States further promoted marriage by providing certain tax incentives (see one of the earlier posts in this thread). The idea behind that was to further promote what could be a stable, civilized society. In that context, tax law can and does support and encourage specific behavior.

    If it wished to do so, Congress could pass similar tax laws benefiting marriage between same-sex partners. I contend it is NOT the role of Congress or the US government to “legalize” same-sex marriage; that is defined by the individual states, as we are now seeing with some states permitting it, others not.

    The current political climate has made this topic a hot-button issue. Unfortunately, in a time of rampant federal spending, this argument is little more than a sideshow which distracts and does not inform the electorate. We know that Mr. Obama has stated he supports gay marriage, Mr. Romney states that he does not.

    Fine. End of conversation. Let’s get on to what is important: the miserable job picture, profligate federal spending, an economy which is not promoting either the growth of small business or of new start-up ventures, and a growing likelihood of greater recession, if not depression. These are the important topics — not whom may I marry.

  • Profile photo of Roarke S. Roarke S. says:

    Some interesting thoughts, Dave. I really don’t have a problem with much of what you said personally, but I’m afraid it misses the mark.

    I think it is important to clearly frame the debate in a way that is helpful, so here’s my attempt. The debate is not over whether gays can be together or not, nor is it about protecting the institution of marriage, the debate is over marriage benefits and who gets them. It’s important to keep this in mind as we move forward.

    I used to be of the opinion that government should get rid of marriage benefits, and stay out of marriage all together, as gmuleman seems to be suggesting. However, I came to realize that governmental economic benefits have a very important purpose. The purpose of economic marriage benefits to heterosexual couples is to incentivize them to start families and stay together as one unit. Speaking from a sociological point of view, the nuclear family unit is the most basic and important building block to any great society(To those more interested in this topic, I suggest reading “Family and Civilization” by Zimmerman).

    Looking at it from this perspective, “gay marriage” becomes the state’s issue. It’s not about religion, or the institution of marriage – at least not completely -it’s about what kind of behaviors the state wants to encourage and what it does not.

  • Profile photo of Ralfh Ralfh says:

    Government has no right to be involved in any marriage, gay straight or otherwise. The government may need to be involved in child welfare and distribution of assets after a union ends. The government can save money by requiring pre-nups before instead of enduring lawsuits after. None of this requires government marriage.

  • While I’m not sure I completely agree with your point of view, you bring up some very interesting ideas regarding the difference between religious and governmental institutions that I have honestly not considered in this light before.
    I think the issue is a bit deeper than this, but I truly appreciate your argument. You have made me think!