Newt Gingrich and a growing number of conservative career politicians and pundits are trying to figure out how they can reconcile “marriage equality”, the conservatives who keep them employed, and their own morals and principles. I would like to propose something a bit less drastic that cuts through the jaw and theater and just tells it like it is…
According to the Declaration of Independence, which serves as this nation’s birth certificate by the way, rights are not granted to the people by the good graces of our government and political interests that control and manipulate it. According to America’s birth certificate, it is our Creator who grants all human rights, and only with the consent of the governed can they be taken away.
You probably noticed that this doesn’t square up with what we call news has to say about the topic, or fits the basis for the legal and political debates across the nation. The reason is that as an American, you are free to marry whoever you so desire, bar the imposition of exceptions to marry members of the same sex, more than one person, non-persons, and even animals. There are additional restrictions on the age that people can marry and the rights of married minors; but by and large, these types of riders are not what the federal government claims as their political domain.
These are not my opinions; these are the facts. There is plenty of room here to add your opinion of my presentation of the facts; but opinions aside, these are all simple and accurate facts. If you listen to the 11:00 pm, news you wouldn’t know these things if the news anchor on your TV screen is the same person that you rely on to make up your own mind. For this, you need to educate yourself; and I am not talking about taking a few courses at the local community college because they’re the ones training the editors and “journalists” who give us the “news”.
The reason I have spent a good deal of effort and time making perfectly clear what the issue of marriage in America is really about is that it is the only way that you can cut past the rhetoric and make an intelligent choice or decision. Starting with the words used by Gingrich (“marriage equality”), this idea being talked about should really be called “forced acceptance of moral issues on our government and private industry”. I’ll explain…
Unless you live in a state that has banned marriage between members of the same sex and certain instances of sodomy, you have the right to do whatever you want. Nobody’s stopping you; go find someone to officiate the ceremony as well as a couple of witnesses, and according to our birth certificate, you are married. The rub here is that our government may not agree with you and refuse to recognize what you have done in an official capacity. The IRS for example is not very likely to take your word for it when filing married with 4 dependents when you are married to 5 other people. It gets complicated, I know.
Your employer may not feel compelled to provide health or dental insurance that they are paying a portion of; and even if they did. they’d need the paperwork so they could stay with the IRS and other government entities that may be involved. The hospital that you go to may have a policy of after-hours visitation by immediate family members, and the list goes on.
Freedom isn’t just a matter of being to do the things that you want to do and then oppressing everyone else because you don’t agree with their ideas of family and relationships. Freedom means tolerating things you are opposed to yourself, and not being forced to support them against your will either. This debate isn’t about same sex marriage; it is about forcing people to relinquish freedom that our Creator has already given us and making the case that government does grant rights. It’s the last one that troubles me the most.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
That last one bothers me the most too!!!! Nice rant!
I am a woman married to a man by choice…… my choice, not by government dictation. it is not up to the government to make these decisions. If you choose your life partner and want to spend the rest of your life with that person so be it. Also if it does’t work out you get to pay like the rest of us…..Alimony. Don’t get me wrong I never got alimony.My prior marriage cost me out the nose. We are suppose to be in the land of the free and I really don’t see it.
A well thought out commentary. Hard to argue with the logic except, of course, the idea that the bonds of matrimony between heterosexual couples are blessed by the government for them to be legal. You can say you are married but if you have to prove it, you need that piece of paper that you got by buying a license to perform the ceremony. The legal ramifications are endless. I speak as one who loves and knows a homosexual couple who are raising 2 beautiful children (no they aren’t women) and have been with one another for 20+ years. I have no problem with their relationship any more than I have with heterosexual couples (in fact they are probably a good example to some of them!) but I understand on a moral level the conundrum.
This is about KEEPING the TRADITIONAL “MEANING” of Marriage. CHILDREN are affected the most! All data shows that in States that have changed their meaning (Massachusett)! RESEARCH into the subject rather then Opinions. Marriage is the most IMPORTANT institution for sustaining the health,education & welfare of all persons. IT’S A FACT well documented. WHY can’t they have a ceremony CALL CIVIL UNIONS? They have the same rights to go to a lawyer and get pre-nuptial & LIving Will b-4 their ceremony of CIVIL UNION! I’M NOT AGAINST THEIR ablility to GET A CIVIL UNIONS, but I’m AGAINST the way they want to do it= BY TAKING AWAY MY RIGHT to KEEP TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE AS AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION! People COMPLAIN about “LOBBYIST” controlling our POLITICIANS>to indoctrinate our children into excepting same sex marriage. BUT it will NEVER change the nature’s character of a person to feel different & be confused as they grow up! CALL IT CIVIL UNION & LEAVE “TRADITIONAL Marriage ALONE! I HAVE RIGHTS TOO!
I’ve long been arguing for the privatization of marriage. Marriage, in and of itself, is not an inalienable right. There’s no such thing as the “right” to get married — marriage is a privilege granted to you by another person (which is why we have to get down on one knee, guys…..), not a right granted to you by the government. Therefore, civil government has pretty much no role to play in the institution whatsoever.
I actually believe that if the GOP adopted a platform of marriage privatization, they could one-up the other side and potentially drive a wedge between the radical homosexual movement.
There is only 1 reason government has any interest in marriage: hetrosexuals bear children. It’s well documented that the best environment for the successful development & socialization of children is a marriate between a man and a woman. The INTEREST is for the children.
“It’s well documented that the best environment for the successful development & socialization of children is a marriate between a man and a woman. The INTEREST is for the children.”
None of that is the government’s business. The only reason civil government exists at all is for the protection and defense of inalienable rights, not for the development and socialization of children. That’s not their sphere.
Marriage is a private contract, between two (or more) consenting adult persons and government needs to stay the heck out of it. Nothing in OUR Constitution empowers the Federal government to make any decisions as to allowing or disallowing any private contract. The 10th Amendment expressly states that powers not delegated to the Federal government by OUR Constitution, nor prohibited by OUR Constitution to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Granted, marriage has TRADITIONALLY been a contract between and man and a woman, however marriage was also TRADITIONALLY (up until the 1960′s) a contract between only those of the same race. In some states, the cohabitation of blacks and whites, married or not, was a criminal offense.
[W3]
Sustaining society is what you must has missed in my posting. I don’t see how color change still sustains society with birth/reproduction of a species.
Forgot the word I don’t see how color change would change the sustaining of society with birth/reproduction of a species. So to me it didn’t change the TRADITIONAL meaning of marriage. What is wrong with CIVIL UNIONS? I do believe it does offer the same GOVERNMENTAL BENEFITS & if not why don’t they just push for that?