After vigorous debate and much public outcry, the United States Senate has finally found a solution to the hot topic of illegal immigration. Ban gay marriage and flag burning.
Maybe its my genetic memory calling, but governmental involvement in marriage doesn’t rest easy with me. Imagine by some miracle this grandstanding on gay marriage actually takes hold and it becomes the 28th amendment to the constitution. Then what will stop government from going further in defining marriage? Say for example, that in order to stop all marriages of convenience, or marriages for citizenship, the government must now be allowed to verify the ceremony with a representative. In Utah, where LDS marriages are performed in temples where only active members are permitted, this legislation would go over like a lead balloon. Yet a similar stomping of the minority is being advocated by the LDS church and other religions in conjunction with an expanding and intrusive government. I do not agree with their advocacy. I doubt the persecuted and hunted LDS church of the 19th century would look favorably upon an amendment restricting their religious freedom either.
There are Christian religions that sanction gay marriage. With Republicans attempting to define (yet again) marriage through a constitutional amendment, it is a clear violation of the establishment clause in prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now according to Mitt Romney, all manner of evils have spewn forth from Massachusetts legalization of gay marriage. He claims that homosexual lifestyles are now being promoted in public schools. Why Mitt needs the help of a constitutional amendment to deal with issues inside his state would be my question. He is free to do as Utah has done and make gay marriage illegal three times over.
The government needs to get out of the business of marriage. Anyone who stands for “limited, small government” and approves of this type of expansion needs to explain their position to me. I see no reconciliation between the two ideas. In a free country, everyone should also be able to decide who their insurance benefits. Recently, I had a long conversation with an unmarried man who was taking care of his disabled sister, who was too young for medicare. When government limits his ability to extend his insurance benefits, who exactly is being protected? In my opinion, it’s the insurance companies and not the American citizen.
This is a prime example of attempting to divert public attention from problems that we are all dealing with on a daily basis.
(See also the Press Release on this topic.)