posted August 20, 2008
While we're all getting worked up about gay marriage (is it right, is it wrong, is it legal, is it illegal), let's adjust our goggles a little bit and view this issue through a different lens, a different perspective. I hope that what I'm about to say will make a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of people who are sick of this bickering. I want to add a little common sense to this argument.
Regardless of what you think about gays in terms of morality, why should it be up to the government to define marriage? What right, responsibility, or obligation does the government have to "define", "license", "recognize", or "protect" marriage? Marriage is a religious institution. It is not a government institution. Where is it written in our Constitution that it is the role of the federal government to determine what is and what is not a "legal" marriage or to give benefits based on the nature of the relationship between two consenting adults? Should the government even have that kind of power? I say "no". The simple answer to the marriage debate is to get the government out of the marriage business.
There is no, nor should there ever be, a government definition of marriage. Marriage is defined Biblically as the union of a man and a woman, period, end of story. Thus, under what authority does the government believe it has the power to subject the relationship of two consenting adults to a government definition of "legal", whether they are gay or straight? The government has not the authority to rewrite the Biblical definition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships, and conversely it should not have the power to give preferential treatment to a married couple over a gay couple. Its just simply not the role of government to do that.
Whether you're gay, straight, bi, or just plain mixed up, it is out of bounds and down right arrogant for the government to believe that it has the authority to "legally recognize" a consenting adult relationship of any kind and thus determine on that basis whether or not one is privy to the resulting tax benefits. It seems to me that that is a gross intrusion on individual liberty. The government should not play ball on that court.
Our horribly ill-conceived income tax system is partly to blame for this mess. As the tax system has morphed into a social engineering tool, the government has made available to married couples tax options that are not available to single couples living together, roommates living together, or gays living together. Why should the nature of the relationship with the person with whom you share a household have anything whatsoever to do with your income tax status? Why should it matter?
There is definitely a benefit to having a traditional family structure, no doubt. However, the "tax incentive" to marry has obviously not done anything to strengthen traditional marriage. The divorce rate is over 50%. The point is, government is powerless when it comes to engineering a what it believes to be a certain desired way of life through tax policy.
Why should a married couple making $50,000 a year be given a tax option that a gay couple making $50,000 is not afforded when clearly the intent of the tax policies have not produced the intended results?
It's my personal belief that most gays are by no means challenging the Biblical definition of marriage. They are instead challenging the government, i.e. "legal", definition of marriage for the simple reason that the government confers benefits to those who are "legally" married. If married couples are given certain tax benefits, is it any wonder that gays would want to be "legally" married and thus be eligible for the same benefits? I don't blame them. From taxes to rights of inheritance, it shouldn't matter whether you're gay or straight. I think we'd be better off if we all filed our taxes individually, regardless of whether we're gay, straight, married, unmarried, married with kids, unmarried with kids, or living with a dog. That would be more fair, and a whole lot less complicated.
I'm a registered Republican, although I would probably call myself a conservative Libertarian. I think this is an issue that liberals and conservatives would see eye-to-eye on if we just viewed it through the proper lens...how much power should the government have? Nobody should have to petition the government for legal recognition of their relationship, regardless of the nature. And our government should have more respect for our individual freedoms than to intervene legally in our relationships and make policies based on the "legality" of our relationships.
Shane Beasley
Signal Mountain
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |