Can someone please explain to me one thing?

Comment

Comment by Jack on April 14, 2009 at 11:29am

Government regulates marraige for the well ordering of society usually following financial concerns like inheritance, child support, liability. However no one seems to notice that the one man/one women model from which the government operates is in effect an establishment of religion. The Mormons were forced to undergo another revelation from their God and repudiate multiple marriages in order to become a State in the Union. Moslems are allowed up to four wives according to the Quoran.
Their relgious faith does not apply in this country however. Western capitalism has adopted the Judaeo-Christian model for the structuring of society. Is this fair? Who can say. It should be noted however that this practice establishes this religious model as normative. Legal experts should challenge this I believe

Comment by cyan banister on April 13, 2009 at 9:59pm

@Paul As a Libertarian, I wish the government would stay out of marriage all together, but unfortunately that is a wish I probably will not see in my lifetime. So, I must wish for things within the constructs of what we have today and I'm in the gay marriage should be recognized as long as straight marriage is recognized camp. I'm also in favor of civil unions as long as they hold the same rights.

Comment by Paul R. Middlebrook on April 12, 2009 at 10:45am

Libertarians hold many different views on the issue of gay marriage, with some believing marriage, both straight and gay, should not be an issue for government and others believing that gay marriage should be recognized so long as straight marriage is recognized--Libertarians believe "government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

Comment by James Hines on April 10, 2009 at 8:55pm

I agree entirely with Enrique's statement; the major issue that seems to arise when it comes to granting legal "marriage" status to gay and lesbian couples is the terminology. No human language to date has developed a word for every single instance where something needed to be described- as a result, we have multiple definitions for the same words. Applying the term marriage to such a union may be offensive to some religious individuals- but considerably fewer object to a civil union, which is essentially the same thing, sans any religious implications.

With regard to your political and religious views, Phillip, I'm an anarcho-pacifist politically and a universal deist in terms of my religious affiliation [or relative lack thereof]. I guess it goes to show just how sensible the concept of civil unions would be, considering we agree on it.

Comment by Enrique Gutierrez on April 9, 2009 at 3:08pm

Your logic doesn't fail. The fact that the government recognizes marriage and provides civil benefits to married couples through taxes and privileges makes the Institution of Marriage a government controlled entity. As a result, any US citizen should not be banned via means of segregation or discrimination from marriage.

Religious organizations hold the tradition of marriage, as opposed to the institution; though they are labeled the same, I fail to see them as synonymous, and doing so is a violation of the Constitution, no exceptions.