Hooray, gay marriage! That's what I've been seeing all over social media today. And no, I'm not upset about the Supreme Court ruling. I believe sexual orientation develops similarly to handedness (being right or left handed) with some combination of genetics and environment and is largely unchangeable. It's not the ruling that is wrong; it's the fact that this issue even had to come up in the first place.
Where in the Constitution is the government given any authority over personal relationships and marriages? Hint: The answer is nowhere. Therefore, the government's issuing of marriage licenses to anyone, opposite or same sex, is unconstitutional.
Gay Americans want the same legal perks that heterosexual Americans have in marriage: tax advantages, homeownership, hospital visitation rights, end of life decisions, etc. But why are these rights tied to marriage in the first place? There should be neither legal perks nor disadvantages to being partnered and/or married; all of the legal advantages currently given to married couples should be available to everyone. Both single and partnered individuals should be able to identify an emergency contact to make critical healthcare decisions in case of incapacitation. Any competent individual(s) should be allowed to adopt a child. Why is being legally married necessary for any of these scenarios?
Let's leave the defining of personal relationships and marriage to religious institutions and individuals and their family and friends. It is unconstitutional to give legal perks to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples cannot enjoy. It is also unconstitutional to demand that a clergy member officiate the wedding of two men or two women or that a caterer serve at a gay wedding.
In summary, get the government out of personal relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It has no constitutional right to be there.
No comments:
Post a Comment