I have to break from the Republican Party for this one.
Currently, the Senate wants to implement a gay marriage ban. The reason for this is obvious: popular support for such a ban has been over-ridden by, in many cases, a single judge on the basis that it is un-Constitutional. In order to prevent judges taking such actions, only an amendment to the Constitution can stop them.
Here is where I get off the bandwagon. It is not the place of any government to dictate whom may be married to whom. The same government that bans gay marriage one year will over turn it 20 years later and then it will never be undone. This would be faulty of being a slippery slope argument were it not for the plethora of examples of past legislation/regulation. I do not believe that marriage is a governmental institution and not subject to the laws of man.
Marriage law should be limited to defining the types of marriage that a government will recognize. A gay marriage ban will likely include "civil union" clauses that give "partners" equal protections as a married couple. In that case, the legislation is worthless. It fails to do anything other than make a symbolic stab.
I would support an amendment stating that the U.S. federal government will only recognize marriage between one man and one woman. All social security survivor benefits, tax law regarding married couples, etc. would be based on that.
There are already treaties with other countries that allow polygamy stating that the U.S. will only recognize the first marriage. Those men and their multiple wives are still technically married.
This is slightly different but the logic still applies.
A Dying Spider
7 years ago