Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Should The State Meddle In Marriage At All?

From Sannion: Despite what some people might assume, I do not, in fact, support gay marriage. Actually, I'm opposed to any kind of marriage. Gay, straight, polygamous - it's all unnatural and wrong. The only people whom nature intended to be together for life are Siamese twins, damn it!

Since other people obviously don't share my views, I think they should have the right to get married - after all, why should we stop them from willingly choosing to be miserable, which seems to be the end result of most marriages - but I don't think the government should be involved in any way. I think the only thing that the government should support is domestic partnerships. That is to say, you can designate another person as your beneficiary, someone that you have decided to set up a household with. You guys get a tax cut, they share your benefits, they can visit you in the hospital, make important decisions about your continued health care should you lapse into a coma or something, and inherit your stuff when you die. Who this person is, what they are to you, doesn't matter. It can be your sexual partner, a familial relation, your best friend, whatever. Everyone in the country gets to designate one other person as their domestic partner. (And they don't have to designate you back, thus opening the door for poly couples.) End of story. As far as marriages go, that should remain a religious institution, and should have no privilege, whatsoever, from the government. If a particular church wishes to bless the sanctity of a union, so be it. Similarly, they should have the right to withhold their blessing if their principles inspire them to be ignorant and bigoted. But that should have no influence, whatsoever, on whether the government recognizes the validity of a particular domestic partnership. That way we will truly have a separation of Church and State in this country. And, come to think of it - we ought to tax religious organizations the same as any other corporate body or business. Considering the billions and billions of dollars and land-use revenue that is lost every year because of this antiquated system, we'd go a long way towards solving some of our national debt by doing so.

[Click text to reach the original page with comments.]

I admit that I am still torn on this subject. But the man makes very good points. I suggest that you also read the comments for an interesting web of opinions.

Right now, I am all for equality but I am also against a one-dimensional view of domestic unions or partnerships. I think many marriages fail because they have a fixed standard on what a marriage is or should be.


  1. I see one reason why marriages fail. They enter a union too prematurely, they don't know the other half of them that well.

    Thanks for being one of my followers, at least I'd reminded time and again that my spiritual guide is looking after me.


  2. What ever they want to call it marriage/union/partnership, I want the benefits--tax cuts and inheritance like what he/she mentioned.

    Maybe a legal union is what I'm after. Nobody other than the uniting parties can declare a spiritual union anyway. Right?

  3. Mugen: That is also a valid reason. In fact, one that is very prevalent here in our country. My friend Sannion believes it's because marriage involves people - who are, after all, very hard to get along with.

    And thanks for that thing you said below. *blush* May we all be spiritual guides to each other.

    Niel: I think a lot of people feel the same way, especially in Europe. It's not really the ceremony or the name but the rights and benefits. And yes, I believe that a spiritual union is entirely in the hands of the people involved.