Thursday, September 30, 2010

Prop 8 - Gay Marriage - My Thoughts

Has been a while since I posted. Well, here is something I wrote as a comment on another person's blog -- Separation of church and state except regarding Proposition 8 --

"legally marry" - You used this term and I have to wonder if you have really thought about it. Plus I wonder if you know the history of the marriage license in the U.S.?
- -

Prior to the Civil War there was no interference from the state or federal govt. in the union of two people.

It seems that after the Civil War there were many women asking for their legal compensation for their husbands dying in service to their country. This was when the govt really started to hand out the licenses and they found it was a way to control the populace.

From above link: Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.

and this: In the early part of the 20th century, the requirement for a marriage licence (sic) was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.[1] By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

The Constitution was designed by The Founders (TM) not to control the populace but for the populace to control the government. Unfortunately this has been turned around on us with everyone wanting a handout and their own interests served first. So now we have a government that is controlling and overbearing and getting more power than The Founders (TM) meant for them to have.

Back to your use of the term "legally marry". - Lets ask ourselves the following, without 'religion' or 'church' involvement.

What is the past & current definition of marriage? (even most of those who want homosexual marriage agree it now is - one man/one woman. That is if they will be honest. That is what they are trying to do after all is redefine the word)

Should one small segment of society (albeit it is growing due to peoples ignorance) be allowed to change the legal definition of 'Marriage' through tugging on heartstrings, with accusations of 'hatred', 'homophobia', and 'bigotry'?

Once this legal definition is changed what is next?

The argument in the comments, "Except for the fact that history does not bear out that slippery-slope argument." is false AND misleading.

History does bear it out and we can see it through numerous examples. Did Hitler take control in a single day? Did Social Security go bankrupt the first day our government started abusing the funds? Even if there were no examples of any past 'slippery slopes' could this be 'the first one'? What would be next? Perhaps something I like and you don't?

I don't expect you to change your mind on this matter. But I do hope that you will slack off a bit on the rhetoric.

Personally I think the government (both state and federal) should get out of licensing peoples relationships as well as licensing pets.

target="_blank"~~~~~Technorati Tags - - - religion -~~~~~