The government currently, however, is taking a blatantly double-standard position on the issue. They say it is wrong for them to discriminate who can and can't be married based on sex. But they have been regulating it based on number for a long time. Since when did I need the government's permission to get married? And remember, if the right to regulate marriage is not granted to the government in the Constitution, doesn't the 10th amendment say that it is either a state or personal issue? How did they get in the business of sneaking into issues not theirs to involve themselves in?
I think that the best way to handle who is married is to handle it the way we handle who is friends. It's up to you, not to the government. I don't think this means that I'm "profaning the sacredness of marriage" at all. I think that it means that it is an issue of private community, not public law. If two people co-habitate and want to say "We're married," I still know what marriage is. And if it's not marriage, I can sorrowfully appeal, or just pray for them. But to regulate it through law is dangerous. After all, if we regulate it based on sex, why not race or class? As with many issues, you must remember that if you work in practice and surrender your principle, the worst possible pratice is right around the corner. Are we really ready for the worst? I don't think so.
I think, frankly, that most of the desire to make marriage legally defined is simply a way to use law as I "I told you I was right and you were full of it" attitude that is neither helpful not healthy. If legal unions are already able to be established by any two people (which they can be), then why would we need a legal recognition of the term "marraige"
No comments:
Post a Comment