Ending the Same Sex Marriage Debate

I like your solution, but I wouldn't take quite a heavy libertarian view of the situation. After all, it was the "overreaching government" that helped enforce the idea that two people of different race could and should be able to get married.

I must admit that I came into this with a cynical attitude. Good job, you won a supporter for your proposal.

Your last paragraph is a key one. Good job Mitch.

The Frog

Logical and sensible, brother. That might be the problem with getting it implemented.

Mitch,

I can understand your desire to resolve this situation. But it won't work. Lawlessness is never the answer. In America, at least, there have always been valid reasons for putting a particular law into effect. Until recently.

The only way to fix this issue is to stand upon the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, including the stipulations of age, mental capacity, etc.

Your way is simply giving up, giving in to the current political pressure. And while it would be nice if it were so simple, I'm dern sure it isn't that simple. Chaos will ensue. It should've been nipped in the bud a few years back. The only chance now is for us to boot out the liberal leaders who are twisting morals and laws and causing all this controversy. Starting with the racist fool that sits in the Oval Office. Then we might have a chance of actually reining in the aggression that's been allowed to liberal activists. Seriously, they don't care one whit about law at all. They want lawlessness, period. It's gonna be worst than the Old West before they're done messing with our Constitution and other tried-and-true laws that America was based on.

By blaming it on racism like you did (when you said the government didn't want blacks and whites to intermarry), thereby comparing that issue to the gay agenda, you've fallen prey to their mindsets.

I'm sorry, but I'm no fool. I hope you won't be either.

One more point-----you said "that fits with their belief system".........

The truth is that America has always had a very conservative, limited belief system! Limited to the belief in one God, the Creator. We're not an atheist Country. Nor are we an Islamic Country. Nor are we a Bhuddist one. And we will NEVER be any of those until and unless we keep cowing down to the lies of the liberal agenda. To dismiss and/or allow our true solidly-conservative heritage of religious beliefs and moral status like lawfully regulating the institutions of religion and marriage to be changed now would be tantamount to changing America at its foundation. Sound familiar?

If people don't fight for what's right now, they'll eventually lose their rights to fight anything at all.

It isn't "the Government" that's wrong. It's two things-----aggressively liberal people who insert themselves into our Government, and those Americans who are foolish enough to allow them to remain there.

Mitch, the comparisons aren't equal. Mandating baptism would indeed be tyrannical. In the same way, the Government does not mandate that people get married! Nor should they ever! Our laws weren't intended to tell us what TO do; they're intended to tell us what NOT to do, and to provide a system of punishment when we break those Laws. That is the only freedom that works correctly, a combination of freedom and justice. Just like that so-called separation of church and state---------the concept wasn't intended to force anyone to worship God; it was intended to give them the liberty to worship or to choose to NOT worship. But no way was it intended to condone the unGodly religions and other crap that's trying to ride the coattails of true Law.

If you don't understand that, let me put provide another point----------the definition of a "church" should never include a place that practices deliberate blasphemy. So, any church that would condone gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a church anyway. Nor should any atheist gathering be allowed to be called a "church" and be under Government protection.

Time needs to come when things are called what they are, instead of covering every evil under the umbrella of "tolerance" and "lawfulness". Think about it. What good is a Law if it isn't right?

This is a tough one Mitch. I am a Christian as well and I accept the Biblical definition of marriage unequivocally. Here, in the USA, we have freedom of religion, and some people disregard God completely. Are we to force them to accept "The Way"? It just doesn't work.

With this approach, we might be better off, than if we just up and make a contradictory form of marriage legal. I guess it would be a license to sin. Meanwhile, we ought to set the best example we can and pray for those who we believe have gone astray.

I have to thank you, because I am inspired to write a hub on this aspect of the quandary.

Mitch.....you've confused me----you said IF we mandate that marriage must be performed in a Bible-believing Church..........I don't think that's the issue here, is it? I don't know of any push to force that on anyone. People have been able to get married at the Town Clerk's Office, or in a ceremony at their house, or whatever, for as long as I can remember. Nothing wrong with that.

So how is that even an issue?

Do you want me to spell out the problem? The problem is that you and others seem to be trying to change traditional marriage instead of simply standing against "gay marriage". Is this what American politics have driven us to?? Indeed, it seems so. The Left has manipulated everyone into a tizzy! They have us running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to defend traditional marriage even if we have to consider changing it, while they're on the OFFENSE and forcing us to come up with some solution to a problem that should never be a problem in the first place. And we let 'em get by with it! Unconscienable!

Okay. If we go with that scenario, where there are no legalities, (and considering that people don't just get married in churches already; they get married at County Clerk's Offices, etc.), then tell me-----what's to prevent kids from getting married, first cousins from marrying, a father and daughter marrying, and a man from marrying his cow or goat or whatever, etc.?

This is a great Hub, Mitch. I was actually hoping to post a similar Hub after I published mine about Chick-Fil-A, but you beat me to the punch and probably put it better than I would have. Voted up.

Mitch: I did not know the history of licensing for marriage, but it sounds like a reasonable explanation of how it came about. Much of our law has a basis is prejudice and bigotry, typical of the day the laws were passed. I hope in America the days of prejudice and bigotry are behind us.

I believe as many who have written here about our shared religion. Although there are many references in the Bible to marriage between a man and more that one woman. Religion is not the issue. Equality under the law is the issue and it shouldn't matter what a person's religion is to get fair treatment under our laws in this country.

Brenda:

"Starting with the racist fool that sits in the Oval Office" Should be "who sits in the Oval Office". Please at least get your grammar correct when insulting the office of the President of the United States, whomever he (or someday she) might be.

If only. There are common sense solutions to many of our problems. If only we could place into positions of power those with common sense.

You make a good pointabout multiple wives. God did only make Eve for Adam. Before you get out of Genesis there is mention of multiple wives for others in Adam's descendants so the practice came along pretty quickly. They had a world to populate, so there may have been a purpose. Guess we'll never know for sure.

Kathleen, I agree that if we could only place into positions of power those with common sense, we'd be on our way to fixing the problems. That could very well happen this upcoming November if we get that fool out of Office.

And by the way, I'm pretty sure I WAS grammatically correct in my statement above. And if I wasn't, I don't care. I'm in NO way worried about offending the (supposed) sensibilities of a man who called unborn children a "punishment", nor insulting him whether he's President or not, or any President past or future who insults humanity in the myriad ways that he has done so (and publicly at that). Indeed I would be pleased to tell him so to his face. SOMEBODY needs to.

Brenda, what you don't realize is that the government can not only force your beliefs on to other people, but it can also force other people's beliefs on to you. What if there was suddenly a homosexual majority in the United States? Because we've given the government so much power and allowed it to intervene to such a great extent (even in private matters like marriage,) the government could all of a sudden dictate that only gay people can marry.

Of course, this is an unlikely situation, but hopefully you see my point. Limited government means no one will be forced to abide by anyone's beliefs.

It is refreshing to see an open-minded, true Christian that realizes giving rights to others does not take away from their own. Many people ask me why I am so vocal about the same-sex marriage issue since I am a heterosexual and does not effect me. My husband and I are of different races and as you reminded everyone years ago our marriage would not have been legal. I have my marriage and therefore my children today because someone fought for me to have that right. I feel that it is my responsibility to now do the same for others. What America should have learned by now, but somehow has not, is that if any of our civil rights are violated, all of our civil rights are violated. Great hub! Keep up the good work.

The end result would be the same. In effect, lifting ALL government restrictions on marriage would mean lifting the ban on same-sex marriages and therefore same-sex couples would have rights that they don't have today.

Brenda said: "The truth is that America has always had a very conservative, limited belief system! Limited to the belief in one God, the Creator. We're not an atheist Country. Nor are we an Islamic Country. Nor are we a Bhuddist one. And we will NEVER be any of those until and unless we keep cowing down to the lies of the liberal agenda. "

You don't want America to be any of those things, but you want it to be totally christian, right?

A "conservative, limited belief system!" Brenda, you are narrow-minded. You are blinkered to the point of only allowing your own views to be valid argument.

As long as the United States of America continues in the majority to think and act like you do, then the potential of your country will be limited too.

One thing you do not seem to have gained from your christian faith is a thing called humility. You rant and rave against minority groups that you have no real understanding of. You seem not to apply any sort of love and tolerance and fairness, because your narrow christian-type point of view is all you can be bothered with.

With great respect, yes, such choices/decisions are the prerogative of your people, through the democratic government..... not for me to interfere with.

However, I see the concentration upon the presumption that the christianity common in the United States is THE solution to everyone's problems, as an arrogant and misplaced presumption.

You spoke in your post about Islamic Sharia Law and Buddhist principles, as though they are so inferior to christianity that they can be dismissed as irrelevant. Am I correct in this understanding?

Without wishing to promote or denigrate any of those alternative philosophical views, I feel that if people who have a christian perspective were to open their minds to other possibilities, that would lead to much more social cohesion.