-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Look, I know my views are extreme on this issue. I am way out of the mainstream.
I would rather the government stay out of marriage…that is just my humble opinion.
You see the consequences of gov’t involvement in marriage. The voters in California have the right to define marriage by constitutional amendment, and did so. Now, gays no longer have that right.
There are positives to having marriage a legal definition…but you are now seeing the negatives.
Actually, I don’t think your views are all that extreme. I agree that the government should largely stay out of marriage. However, absolutely staying 100% out of marriage is extreme. It would lead to chaos.
The government needs to recognize and document when a marriage occurs. First of all, because by definition marriage requires recognition by the state to even be a marriage. But secondly, because there are many benefits from the state of marriage being unambiguously determined. There are too many laws that depend on someone being married or not. You can’t leave the state of marriage or lack thereof as a loose end to be determined by a court ex post facto. The consensual agreement must be recognized by a duly appointed agent of the state so that later on there can be no doubt that a couple was married. Otherwise, there will inevitably be great injustice.
Actually, it is debatable whether or not the voters in California had the right to deny such basic civil rights. In fact, there are procedural objections to this recent vote. It may be overturned. We are supposed to be in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. You can’t overturn the constitution by mob rule. More learned people are required in the process to get past the ignorance and passions of the masses.
