I got an email the other day about Obama coming out saying he was for same sex marriage.
I cannot understand why people get all upset about this. Who cares? The real question is, why do we allow the government to be a 3rd party to marriage in the first place. Isn't marriage a contract between 2 people? Why is the state allowed to be a 3rd party? Christians, above all, should hold that marriage should be only between the 2 people and God.
No state needed.
Anyway, here is my email response back to the one I got.
I cannot understand why people get all upset about this. Who cares? The real question is, why do we allow the government to be a 3rd party to marriage in the first place. Isn't marriage a contract between 2 people? Why is the state allowed to be a 3rd party? Christians, above all, should hold that marriage should be only between the 2 people and God.
No state needed.
Anyway, here is my email response back to the one I got.
A license is a piece of paper giving you permission to do that
which would otherwise be illegal or “wrong.” A marriage license is just a
permission slip with some legal benefits granted by the state. If we took this
monopoly “benefit” from the state, then homosexuals wouldn’t want a marriage
license anyway. No state monopolized benefit? Issue gone.
In the early British/American colonies a “marriage tax”
was issued (i.e. marriage license) and the colonists took up arms in resistance to
the tax. They said the King had no right to regulate their marriages. It
was dropped, because none would pay the tax. Nullified. Later the marriage
license was re-introduced to prevent blacks from marrying whites.
So why have we regressed to protect the state on this issue that
our forefathers fought against?
IF you want to get married, take some advice, don’t get a
marriage license. My wife and I didn’t, and we have been married for 19 years.
Then all these trivial nonsensical things about marriage rights,
man and woman only, and defense of marriage acts are just that.
Trivial nonsense.
There are social aspects to marriage. These social aspects are the legitimate business of the families involved and the larger social group (Church). This is because it is the families and social group who will have to ameliorate the costs of a failed marriage by assisting in the care of any children.
ReplyDeleteLetting the state take over marriage weakens intergenerational cooperation because parents have reduced influence on their children to marry wisely by threatening to withhold support in case of problems -- the state will set the terms of the marriage, the state will bless the marriage, the state will be the final supporter. The state isn't interested in the long term happiness of anyone, it just wants their votes in the present.
Churches both passively and willingly give up their most important social functions to the state, then complain that people don't take them seriously. Duh. And then they fight with others for control of the state so that the state will do things their own way (and churches aren't in unanimous agreement on the details, which further complicates things). Double-duh.
The social organization function of the church is part of the testimony of Christ to the world. It isn't the hip songs, or the nice car the pastor drives, it is (partly) the evidence of people following God's Word to solve their problems justly and peacefully.
Two gay people can call themselves married, or ducks, and it has as much effect on me in a voluntary society.
Jim in Kenai