It seems strange there has not been much made about the political quagmire of same-sex marriage since the middle of the Bush administration.
I figured with a Democratically dominated House, Senate, and a Democratic Executive, it would be a quick pass on the legislative turnstile, but I was surprised to find out that President Obama seems to side with the Bush administration’s take on it, though not to the marriage amendment extreme.
“I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman,” said President Obama.
I know a lot of people who think that this is a civil rights issue, and maybe that’s true. Frustrations are high, as each side demands some sort of federal legislation to push through a vote one way or another.
But are we looking at this issue correctly? Isn’t marriage a religious institution? Isn’t there some amendment about the government infringing on the free exercise of religion? (Hint: There is.)
Why is the federal government defining and subsidizing the institution of marriage? I don’t understand. Shouldn’t that be determined by the individual’s church or religious organization, be it Christian, Mormon, Muslim, or even Atheist? I think so.
At base, marriage is simply a contract, and I am all for the government upholding contracts, but defining and subsidizing marriage through tax benefits seems like an overstepping of the 10th amendment.
We all have our pet issues. Some of us are against gay marriage, while others are against polygamy, and the like. So we choose to use coercion to enforce our philosophies on others, instead of taking the time to convince and try to understand others through friendly persuasion and argument.
People just avoid open discourse any more, but they have no problem voting in an almost vindictive and hypocritical fashion. Christians for example (I can knock them, because I am one) claim that big governments are not usually friendly to the church, and they’re right, but it seems they have turned from converting hearts minds to legislating beliefs.
This sort of hypocrisy is true on both sides.
People come in with good intentions. Those seeking a right for the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, see this as a civil rights issue, akin to the civil rights movement in the ‘60s.
While the other side begins to think about implications with child adoption and the potential for churches to not be able to make a choice as to whom they will and will not marry under their roof.
This is a complicated issue, and a moral issue. We don’t question the right of one religion or philosophy to promote its beliefs, yet we allow the federal government to define marriage. I say, give that defining right back to the religious institutions and let the Almighty judge who He will judge.
