I'm convinced that sex is for marriage and that sex or sex-like activity with someone other than one's spouse is harmful and wrong. However, I would not use the force of law to prevent consenting adults from doing whatever they want in private. Conversely, I do not think anyone should use the force of law to get me to pay for care necessitated by those activities. STDs? Injuries? Unplanned pregnancies? You consented, you can deal with it.
Many people who disapprove of homosexual behavior also defend marriage, and some marriage neutering advocates apparently have this is mind when they demand that we stay out of their bedrooms. In doing so, they are confusing the issues.
One need not disapprove of homosexual behavior to see the importance of resisting the neutering of state marriage licensing.
Maintaining marriage does not interfere in anyone's bedroom. Adults of any sexual orientation are legally free to engage in cohabitation, casual sex, and other sexual and general social interactions and voluntary arrangements.
A more relevant challenge is posed with something like this:
This had been going on before any state neutered marriage, it is all legally permitted, and there is no serious movement to pass legislation to change this.
It is when someone requests a marriage license (or a domestic partnership or civil union) from the government, which operates on behalf of the governed, that is when it becomes my business and the business of any citizen. State licensing is a public issue.
This isn't about what two people get to call their relationship - it is about forcing the rest of us to affirm brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, and preventing us from distinguishing between marriage and the pairing of two men or two women. The state is YOU and ME. It isn't as though, when the state issues a marriage license, it is "someone else".
We have seen the shift in activism go from "stay out of our lives" to "you must participate in our lives in the manner in which we demand." Well, I will gladly stay out of your bedroom. Please keep your hands off of my ballot.
(This is modified from a posting originally made at The Opine Editorials.)
Many people who disapprove of homosexual behavior also defend marriage, and some marriage neutering advocates apparently have this is mind when they demand that we stay out of their bedrooms. In doing so, they are confusing the issues.
One need not disapprove of homosexual behavior to see the importance of resisting the neutering of state marriage licensing.
Maintaining marriage does not interfere in anyone's bedroom. Adults of any sexual orientation are legally free to engage in cohabitation, casual sex, and other sexual and general social interactions and voluntary arrangements.
A more relevant challenge is posed with something like this:
Who cares if a couple of guys want to marry each other?Nothing is stopping consenting adults from sharing a home, bed, and life together; having showers and parties; entering into contracts (in some places, domestic partnerships); having a ceremony with consenting clergy, wearing dresses or tuxes, holding flowers, making vows, exchanging rings, stomping a glass; having a reception with gifts, a cake, bouquet-tossing, garter-tossing, and dancing through the night; taking a honeymoon vacation; changing names; calling themselves married; requesting that others consider them married; and celebrating anniversaries.
This had been going on before any state neutered marriage, it is all legally permitted, and there is no serious movement to pass legislation to change this.
It is when someone requests a marriage license (or a domestic partnership or civil union) from the government, which operates on behalf of the governed, that is when it becomes my business and the business of any citizen. State licensing is a public issue.
This isn't about what two people get to call their relationship - it is about forcing the rest of us to affirm brideless or groomless pairings as marriage, and preventing us from distinguishing between marriage and the pairing of two men or two women. The state is YOU and ME. It isn't as though, when the state issues a marriage license, it is "someone else".
We have seen the shift in activism go from "stay out of our lives" to "you must participate in our lives in the manner in which we demand." Well, I will gladly stay out of your bedroom. Please keep your hands off of my ballot.
(This is modified from a posting originally made at The Opine Editorials.)
PW wrote: "Adults of any sexual orientation are legally free to engage in cohabitation, casual sex, and other sexual and general social interactions and voluntary arrangements.
ReplyDelete[...]
Nothing is stopping consenting adults from sharing a home, bed, and life together..."
The problem ... "free" isn't free. Same-sex couples, who are among the governed, are expected to pay more into the government and get less from it. A couple of examples.
Opposite-sex couples have the option of sharing benefits, such as employer-provided health insurance, with no tax implications. Same-sex couples may have no such option at all, or may have the obligation of recognizing any such benefit as "extra income" and paying the taxes on that income.
Opposite-sex couples have the option of joint ownership of property, assuring both of them that should one pass away there would be continuity for the other. Same-sex couples have no such options, and would face taxes up to 50% of the estate upon the death of their partner.
The government, clearly, is acting on behalf of some of the governed at the expense of the others. A kind of redistribution of wealth, which I would expect conservatives to oppose. I guess they are a bit less sincere when they and their families are the beneficiaries of such a redistribution.