Government: Get Your Hands off Marriage!

Source

I Advocate Personal Freedom

I was asked a while back about what my take was on Gay Marriage. I have not been doing a lot of writing on Hubpages for the past year or so, but since I had decided that it was time for me to start doing so again, I thought that this was one question, at least, that I am able to answer, and I believe that I can answer it very thoroughly.

My Personal Feelings about Gay Marriage Are Irrelevant

Although I will address what my personal feelings are about gay marriage, this issue should not be in any way personal. I believe that the asker was probably hoping to learn more about my religious or sociological stance on gay marriage, and while I will address that, I see this as a much more political question than I see it as a personal question.

Marriage, whether it is straight or gay marriage, is not a matter for the state to handle or address. As with most things, the waters only become truly muddy when the government begins to put its hands into the pot and stir it around. Whether or not I support the right of gays to marry is irrelevant because I do not see marriage as a right at all.

What does that mean, though? It means that I believe that the government should take its hands off of the private sector and stop legislating belief. Over and over again I have seen where various laws have attempted to tell me what I can and can not believe. There are laws that say that I must vaccinate my child in order to send her to school (private or public), and laws being proposed that say that children cannot be circumcised in certain states (better the local or state government than the federal government, granted).

When the government attempts to legislate belief, it far oversteps its bounds and its right as a governing body.

Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Issue: It is a Religious Issue

There are those who disagree and say that marriage is a matter for society and not for religion. Whether they are right or I am right doesn't matter; the issue is the same. This is not a civil matter, and not one which should be legislated at all.

What if straight people stopped having the right to get married. What would happen then? It would simply mean that marriages would no longer be legally recognized, and we all start off in the same playing field, straight, gay, polygamists and all.

Gays Should NOT Have the Right to get Married

And neither should straight couples have the "right" to get married.

Depending on the person that I ask, my gay friends have various reasons for why they would like to be married. Most of them say that it is a matter of equality; they want to be equally recognized, as a people, along with straight couples. It's a nice thought, and it does make sense. But just as often the reason is stated as being related to the rights of married couples. It changes the way that we are taxed (married couples are penalized), and it affects the way that we receive benefits from our partner's insurance and in the case of death. In fact, the reason why marriage is a legal institution at all relates to these factors.

One of the reasons that many people object to gay marriage is the fact that more and more insurance companies are recognizing civil unions. And, if civil unions are legally recognized, do gays need the right to get "married" instead? Usually the answer to this question reverts to the previous answer of "equality."


But Why NOT Allow Gay Marriage?

There is no valid reason that I can determine for not allowing gay marriage other than the religious objections that only make it more clear that the government needs to take its hands off of our personal freedoms.

Gay marriage is a perfect example of how more government involvement, regulation and all over legislation results in the demise of our personal freedoms. You cannot be both an advocate of big government and an advocate of personal freedom. You must make a choice between the two.

Interestingly, if the government passes legislation to allow gay marriage, it will be a step backward, because it is another way in which we must toe the line for the bureaucrats in Washington.

Source

My Personal Feelings on Gay Marriage

I consider myself an "Old Testament Christian." When I say this, what I mean is that I follow the Tanakh closely, do my best to observe the Torah and to align myself with my understanding of the word of Yahweh, the Bible.

We are given a plan for marriage in Genesis, chapter 2, verse 24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." The language is clear and precise; marriage is one man and one woman. The verse does not say to his 'wives' or to his 'husband.'

I follow the Torah as best I can. I'm failing right now, I will admit. In fact, I'm even eating pork on Mother's Day this year. And interestingly, in that same vein, I treat all "abominations" the same. It is true that the scriptures refer to homosexuality as an abomination in Leviticus 18:22. And a common argument is that throughout Leviticus, the scriptures call various different foods that are commonly eaten by Christians an abomination.

Ordinarily I wouldn't eat shellfish either. Or wear that which pertains to a man. Or clothing with mixed fibers. And yes, I'm a Christian, not Jewish. If there is a singular group of people who have license to say that they disagree with homosexuality, it is those of us who are Torah Observant.

But I still believe that you have to make the personal choice in your own life whether or not this is a lifestyle you can live with. Not everyone is a Bible-believing Christian or even a Torah Observant Jew. And regardless of your religious beliefs (even if you are Christian or Jewish), you still have to decide how that fits into your own personal view of salvation and the scriptures.

If marriage remains a legal institution, I will not vote to allow gay marriage, and I will continue to vote in support of straight marriage. Why? Because I believe that marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I will support the rights of my friends to share insurance or to be bound together by civil unions, but "marriage" is a term which, to me, means one man, one woman, for life.

I do not intend to be contradictory or to start a flame war. I only set out to answer a question that was asked of me, presumably regarding my religious rather than my political values. Please keep the comments clean. They are moderated.

More by this Author


Comments 12 comments

Everyday Miracles profile image

Everyday Miracles 5 years ago from Indiana, USA Author

LOL! I got sparked on Squidoo. Sorry about that.

It's really Leo you miss, you know. I've mostly been publishing stuff about country music :P


vrbmft profile image

vrbmft 5 years ago from Yucaipa, California

Hi Everyday Miracles,

I appreciate your fresh approach and your attempt to be balanced and true to your own beliefs.

I think homosexuality is a great mystery. I do not believe God to be a trickster. We obviously do not adhere to EVERYthing in scripture, for example, stoning women. Leviticus is filled with regulations which may have been important at one time. I don't know. I see Scripture as the story of the evolution of Man's relationship to God. I do not dismiss the verse in Leviticus, but my thought is that "mankind" has been homophobic for years and then too, homosexuality is confused with pedophilia, etc.

What I do know is that Gay people, men and women, and gay couples, have given me many gifts in understanding who I am as a straight person. I cannot deny that. So you judge life experiences by their fruits, so I am slow to say anything negative about homosexuality or gay marriages, anymore than I would about horrific straight marriages that are so destructive.

Anywho, I appreciate your courage to tackle a flaming controversial topic. Pun intended!

Vern


Erin Eisenman profile image

Erin Eisenman 5 years ago from Montana

I respect your take on this issue and find it closely inline with my own personal views! Great job on a very delicate topic!


jpcmc profile image

jpcmc 5 years ago from Quezon CIty, Phlippines

Interesting views on marriage. Unfortunately marriage is a social contract and thus requires rules and regulations by the state. I still believe in marriage in spite of the growing divorce and separations. Perhaps its neither religious nor sociological for me. I simply have faith in it.

It's so brave of you to venture into this very touchy subject. For that you have my respect.


AntonOfTheNorth profile image

AntonOfTheNorth 5 years ago from The Land Up Over

I'm Canadian and we've had same sex marriage law on the books here for some years now.

The law does not require any religious organization to perform a marriage rite for a gay couple, but does entitle a gay couple the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple.

In a society that respects individual rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination due to, among many things, sexual orientation, there is really no other moral choice in a government.

A government, by definition, defines and enforces the rights and freedoms of a given society. Of course they have a role to play in ensuring that everyone can exercise the same rights, privileges and responsibilities.

As to big government vs personal freedoms, that's a whole other debate.

cheers


Fuller-Life profile image

Fuller-Life 5 years ago from Washington, DC

Voted up. You definitely caught my attention till the end. I loved how you sensitively navigated the touchy topic. Great hub.


Fay Paxton 5 years ago

Voted way up for honesty and candor.


johncimble profile image

johncimble 5 years ago from Bangkok

VOTE UP! :)


dober 5 years ago

According to Loving vs. Virginia,“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.


MikeSyrSutton profile image

MikeSyrSutton 4 years ago from An uncharted galaxy

I agree and thought you handled this bravely!


TIMETRAVELER2 profile image

TIMETRAVELER2 4 years ago

I absolutely agree with you and was happy to see someone stand up and publicly state such views. Well done.


dalton71482 profile image

dalton71482 4 years ago from Tennessee

I think i agree with you. I do not believe gay marriage is the same as straight marriage in the eyes of the lord. But this country was founded under the premiss of religious freedom and if a gay couple believes they should be married I don't think we have a right to stop them.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working