Thursday, July 15, 2004

Well, everybody's talking about the whole "gay marriage" issue. What I don't hear anybody doing is actually looking at the root issue; what business does the government have with marriage?

I know, I know, some people will point out the obvious issues of property and children, and say marriage is what protects and defines your rights concerning those issues. But that's somewhat misleading. People live with each other and have children outside of marriage on a fairly regular basis. Perhaps this was shocking fifty years ago, but it's not even yawn-worthy now.

I say there ought to be contracts available through the government concerning property rights of couples (or groups of three or more, if they so desire). Let them be called "civil unions" or "life-partner contracts" or even "legal shackles" if they so desire. Let them be binding legal contracts. Hell, we could even make some non-permanent ones, for those who don't want to deal with permanence.

Let there be laws concerning the rights of children, and the obligations of those who create them and those who raise them.

Then, let marriage be a completely religious thing. If you're a Baptist, and you think homosexuals and polygamists shouldn't be allowed to marry - then make sure your church won't marry them! Your church will remain devout towards its beliefs, and nobody's rights are trampled.

Seriously; what concern does the government have towards marriage? If I want to marry another consenting adult, it's no business of the government's whether it's a she, a he, or even a they. For those who are concerned with my mortal soul, let them deal with it in a religious fashion, not a legal one.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's"

In every aspect of life, we should examine whether it really is the government's business, or whether it should be dealt with in another way. The easy way out is to say "there ought to be a law" about whatever. But is that really a good thing?

I also hear a lot of people saying "there ought to be universal health care, because we have a right to it." Since when?

I do believe in universal health care for children, as I believe in a free education (although my thoughts on education are a rant for another time).

But everybody? I don't want to pay for the people who refuse to exercise, who eat poorly, who smoke, who in many, many ways don't take care of their health. And if I choose not to take care of my health, you shouldn't be obliged to pay the price, either. But that's what a universal health care system will cause. And it has bankrupted every country that's tried it. Before we think about experimenting with such a thing, howzabout we try paying off our multi-TRILLION dollar debt?

Yes, I'm obviously a libertarian. But along with freedom comes the responsibility for your actions. And it seems fewer and fewer people desire either, except in patriotic songs.

*Sigh* Bush vs. Kerry. What a joke.


No comments:

Post a Comment