Yeah, I’m starting off with a bang here. One of the hot topics of our time, especially in my home state of New Jersey right now, is should Homosexuals be allowed to marry under Federal/State Law. Well I’m here to say that it should not be allowed.
(pause for effect)
That is because I don’t think ANY marriage should be allowed under Federal/State Law. Marriage is a religious idea and, as such, has no place in the government. Now if you want to talk about a Domestic Partnership Contract, I’m all for that for anyone and everyone, but not for life. It should be allowed that any group of humans over the age of 18 years can get a term contract for Domestic Partnership with all the benefits of the current laws for Married People. How long the term would be is obviously up to the States, but I think options for 1, 3, 5 & 10 years would not be far-fetched. Nothing says that you cannot renew your contract prior to it ending, but it would have to be mutually agreed upon.
You will note that I said “any group of humans”. That was deliberate. First of all, I don’t think it should be legal to marry a dog, tree, or kitchen sink. That’s just … odd. I don’t have a problem with more than two people wanting to join their lives together. Not my cup of tea, mind you, but I think that the polygamy laws have fulfilled their function and protected women. Now everyone is equal under the eyes of the law, regardless of sex, race, etc, so let those that want to do this be able to.
I would ask that the arguments against this that any of you decide to make be limited to non-religious arguments. The whole point behind this is that marriage is a religious ideal and has no place in governmental law. Thank you.
I think that a great deal of the issue is a terminology clash. Both religions and government use the term "marriage" and they mean different things.
ReplyDeleteFor the former it's a sacrament and/or an important ritual in their communities and social conventions.
For the latter it is as you described it - a recognized (and licensed!) contract that brings with it a set of defined benefits and requirements.
Government taking the time to modify their statutes to use a different term (at a minimum) would be a large step towards diffusing at least part of the argument.