Regardless of which side of this issue that you stand, the fact is that the Constitution does not cover marriage, and should not start to.
The Constitution covers in broad strokes what the government is obligated to do for its people. It is not written to "ban" things or discriminate. Then the "right" to get married gets brought up like it is in one of the amendments or something....wrong...it is not. There is no "right" to marriage for anyone. The amendments are written to limit the government's actions on the people in broad strokes as well.
I can't see where the argument for or against gay marriage falls under any kind of "Constitutional" rule. Heterosexual marriage is not covered in the Constitution. The Constitution would be ruined if it is changed to allow for discrimination. While I understand this issue is something that needs to be resolved, I don't think bringing the Constitution into it will do anything positive and may end up doing permanent damage.
The whole argument of the sanctity of marriage is a bunch of crap as well. We are talking about a history of arranged marriages, fly by the night marriages, teenage marriages, Las Vegas marriages, golddigging marriages, oopsIgotyoupregnant marriages, and immigration marriages but somehow letting two people that love each other get married is going to ruin the sanctity...give me a break.
3 comments:
Amen, sister! The government has no business regulating our personal lives. I think the governement should issue standard civil unions to any two people that want to enter the contract, which would get you all the legal protections and benefits. If the religious people want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, they can have the title and people who want it can go to a church and get it.
What's the problem, know what I mean? Two people love each other, they want to get married, let them...
Couldn't have said it better.
Post a Comment