Friday, May 01, 2009

Gay Marriage - Comment Bump/NLB Round-Up

Matt commented here:

As for gay marriage, Bruce, I will never ever understand your support of it. If we actually had the conservative government we want and need, it would never even see the light of day. The reason? It's wrong, pure and simple. Some thing are what they are, regardless of what your personal opinion is. Additionally, what you are missing is that this is only a spearhead for a counterculture movement that has NO intention of stoping at only making marriage for gays and lesbians legal. How you (collectively) can't see that, is beyond my comprehension, given what I know of your ideals, Bruce, and others on this site.

My response, bumped to the front page by request:

My position has always been that IF the government insists on being in the business of marrying people, than they should make such a contract available to any two people who want to pony up the license fees and enter into such a contract with the State.

In my mind, that of a limited government conservative, the less the government interferes in our lives the better.

I'll always side with the rights of the individual over the power of the government. When we let the government define, regulate, and ENFORCE our personal morals and morally-driven behavioral choices, we're f***ked.

Also, I'll never understand the argument about preserving the "sanctity" of civil marriage. There's no "sanctity" to it.

If a man and a woman want to get married by the government, they do not need to (a) declare, under oath, their love to one another, (b) promise to cohabitate, (c) pledge to reproduce and raise a family, or (d) swear fidelity to one another.

The only thing "sacred" and non-negotiable is the license fee.

If this same couple wants to enter into the covenant of Holy Matrimony through the place of worship of their choosing, it's simply NONE of the government's business.

The bill passed by the NH senate essentially tells the State they can't do shit to affect how any church or religion chooses to handle this issue.

Would you have the government placing restrictions and limitations on religious institutions and their ceremonial rites and observances?

In case anyone doubts the consistency of my position on this issue, or is having a difficult time following my reasoning behind it, here are a few posts from my archives, the first of which was published here in March of 2004, just six days into this blog's humble existence.

Going to the Chapel
And in this corner...
Gay Marriage - part III
License to Carry Marry
MA SJC Upholds the Rule of Law - Oh No!
The Gay Marriage Debate - Part 2,994

Oh, and do you want to know which subset of the population has been extremely consistent in its opinion that gays don't have the right to marry?

Democrat presidential candidates.

Here are a couple more from the "If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all" file:

Our Next Governor?
A Little Consistency Would Be Nice
The Hypocrisy Parade Rolls On
Vocabulary Lesson

Well, that should keep you busy for a while. I'll be heading up to Maine for a couple days now. See you when I get back.