Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Marital Agreement?

Something my professor for my Introduction to U.S. Government class said during his lecture really sent me thinking. In our study of the U.S. Constitution we are looking into the federalism aspect and separation of powers aspect of the document. During the lecture he touched on what attributes to the amount of power that states have. In his talk, he mentioned how the current issue we have now is homosexual couples who “marry” in one state are not considered “married” in another state. This is considered a violation of the full faith and credit clause. Then he asked the class what marriage was and several replied in unison “a man and a woman”, and then he replied that despite what civil or religious ideas a person has a state sees a marriage only as an legal agreement. My text for this class confirms this because certain benefits are attributed to married couples concerning property, taxes, and so forth.

I will work within realistic terms, and realistically many states that are influenced by morally minded people do not recognize “marriage” between those of the same gender as “marriage” and therefore do not grant the couple the benefits of being married that the government provides. Unless the state governments are interested in fulfilling the homosexual agenda of normalizing homosexuality and providing a platform for homosexuals to revel in their sinfulness, states are simply interested in fulfilling the benefits that they have give to marriage and homosexuals are simply trying to get them. Exceptions to this idea however are homosexuals who want to “marry” children, “marry” individuals against their will, or force people to acknowledge their relationship. Excusing all those situations, homosexuals want to gain the benefits of married heterosexual couples in the terms of the state.

After I came to this realization I find that the Christian community may be fighting the wrong battle. Though I do believe we must have the country (and the world) understand that homosexuality is a reproach to God, we can easily resolve part of the issue by simply limiting government influence. If the government provided no benefits for marriage, those that married would simply be doing so to begin a family. Period. Without benefits provided with marriage some homosexual couples may continue to simply live together, and pastors and priests of different churches would avoid the issue of confronting homosexual couples who want to marry in his or her church. If they wanted to start a legal battle, it can easily be explained that the priest or pastor is simply practicing his or her religion. In addition to that, since the philosophy to a right to privacy has been established and it has been stated that homosexuals have a “right to privacy” in their sexual matters, marriage would simple take that “private” matter into the public realm. For some this is exactly what they want. Also, if the state did want to get involved the only feasible benefit that I can think of is a tax benefit for married, heterosexual couples who bear children. In a sense this is an incentive for the people to benefit the state by providing more workers (or taxpayers depending on how you look at it) and would also keep those with certain religious affiliations be satisfied since only heterosexual couples can produce children.