Posted by
Dave Kooker on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:01:00 PM
This is where my Libertarian ideology kicks in from my Reagan social moral conservatism. I have never entered the hotly contested big debate about the institution of marriage being defined as a legal union between a man and a woman. If the activities between two legal aged adults (or more) is consensual, why is it illegal? It does not affect my ‘traditional’ marriage, my child raising abilities, my personal security, and it does not affect my path to heaven as explicitly defined in the Bible. The other participating individuals of non-traditional unions must bare the burden for their own actions.
Everybody wants the rights and privileges (i.e. tax benefits or expansion of employee benefits) that are allowed to 'traditional' marriages (One man and one woman) but, all other non-traditional marital arrangements do not want the consequences of an actual marriage. If same sex marriages were legally forced to abide to the same legal confines good or bad of the 'traditional' marriages, the queers would quickly drop the initiative. If the same common law marriage parameters applied to them see how fast they would acquire separate legal residences. Consequences make individuals think twice about following through on an action by calculating the financial and/or legal exposure.
For example: If Rafael and Stephan get married and then two years later want a divorce, force them to go through the actual divorce process and mediation of; child support if applicable, alimony, and the division of community property. Watch these two individuals start fighting and crying like little girls complaining how unfair the divorce process really is. Reality would set in and would stop this same sex marriage initiative fast in its tracks.
From an opposite sex perspective, why is a man and/or woman only allowed to marry one of the opposite sex? If a man can afford the financial burden and wants the burden of emotional torture of more than one woman why can't he be allowed to? (Or vice versa) It is his patience that his needed to deal with multiple PMS episodes each month and a fortune to afford multiple shopping sprees of retail therapy to please his wives. Does his marriage affect negatively to anyone else? No…. Perhaps looks of envy from his fellow men wanting a harem of their own. If he can afford the cost of children from multiple wives and he is a good father, why not? How is this man harming his children or abusing his wives?
Let's take this idea a step farther. If farmer Jenkins wants to marry his favorite pet goat, why can't he? It still does not affect my marriage or child raising abilities, it does not affect my personal security, and it does not affect my path to heaven as explicitly defined in the Bible. Farmer Jenkins is the one who must face the scrutiny of public opinion and legal consequences of marital law. I am sure that his creator wouldn’t be pleased with him at the pearly gates. I don't want to think about farmer Jenkin’s honeymoon.
This could really cause a big quandary in the Liberal community. On one side, Liberal perversions of sexual activity would encourage farmer Jenkins to marry his pet goat to spite the moral fiber of this country. On the other side, Animal rights activist would be screaming that the civil rights of the goat have been violated.
As for me, I personally think this is how a Christian proves his faith. Not by enforcing his faith on others by legalism but, how he/she lives in an environment and still keeps his own faith. It is the responsibility of ‘traditional’ marriage participants to show how marriage is a positive union between a man and a woman. I wish America’s commitment to marriage were taken more seriously. Today’s divorce rate of over 50% has rendered the institution of marriage meaningless even if there was a Constitutional amendment to specifically define it as a union between a man and a woman.
For more articles of my worldview
[ Go to the main blog of Dave Kooker at http://dmkooker.townhall.com ]