Saturday, August 28, 2010

Unconventional Marriages

OK, so really I have two points to make. Keeping it short. I don't have a problem with people who want to live together and if they belong to a church that is willing to bless or sanctify their relationship then that is totally up to them  But, you have to realize two things:

1. Today's same-sex marriage controversy isn't about who can be together and who can't. These people are already together. And do they think they need their relationship condoned by some government agency? No, I don't think so. It is about government benefits.  Here's a list the Government Accounting Office (GAO) made up to give "a sense of the kinds of federal laws in which marital status is a factor." What is the point of all of this? Governments have been encouraging and subsidizing marriage for decades. Why? Some of it is tradition, some is religious, some of it is simply doing favors for constituents.

2. Same-gender marriage is just the start.  Other committed relationships are still not recognized by the government and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be.  For example, why is "two" a special number?  Shouldn't a marriage of three people be recognized by the government? How about one? A single person cannot share in the benefits of marriage--why not? Does there have to be sex involved at all? I can see where an entire congregation or commune of people might enter into a marriage if it means they get more food stamps.

That being said, the government should not be in the marriage business. All the special laws, regulations and exceptions made for married people should be scrapped. There may be an argument to subsidize the raising of children, but that should be a wholly different matter.

No comments:

Post a Comment