marriage for none… civil unions for all

Throughout the UU Blogosphere and on my own blog peeps list, I have seen this video popping up. No doubt why. Keith Olbermann’s commentary resonates loudly with liberal thinking people.

But despite his slant, Keith, asks a question which I think should send a red flag up for conservatives.
You see, I’m a bit of a conservative, too. I am a bit of a UU oddity in my political stance. I am a card carrying member of the Libertarian party. Some people call it, the Real Republican party or the Republican Party of Teddy Roosevelt.  I’m not a hard core Libertarian, but I agree with a little more of its platform than the others.

And so I’ve thought about this same sex marriage thing off and on for a few months… letting it kind of stew in mind a little and I came to the same conclusion this guy over at The Little Cog did. There should be no marriage licenses for anyone… civil unions for all. I don’t really get too riled up about many causes except the separation of church and state and the whole marriage equality thing i think can be argued to fall in that realm.

I mean marriage between two people is a religious construct. It is not a governmental institution. Why does the government need to recognize or sanctify (via a marriage license) a religious ceremony.

And so I’m asking you, the rare, politically conservative reader of my blog, does California’s Prop 8 and Keith’s commentary below send a red flag to your political stance.  If not… why?  Because if you truly believe in smaller government, if you truly believe the government should leave you alone, how can you possibly justify the government telling someone it is or isn’t ok to marry

I don’t understand.  Please tell me how you, as a political conservative, think it’s ok for the government to tell you whether it’s ok or not to do something as important as be with the one you believe you should be with.

And to quote Keith… why does this matter to you?


5 responses to “marriage for none… civil unions for all

  1. I mean marriage between two people is a religious construct. It is not a governmental institution. Why does the government need to recognize or sanctify (via a marriage license) a religious ceremony.

    Because we’ve taken to conditioning Gov Benefits to marriage e.g. SSA spouse benefits, etc.

    Our Marriage Equality frame is bizarre. As long as Government is in the business of licensing Marriage, than Government is in the business of discriminating who marries by definition… discrimination is what licensing means.

    Marriage Licenses are fairly recent developments and they may not be servering much of a purpose other than greating a framework for handing out benefits.

    We’d be better off getting the Gov out of the licensing business and dispensing benefits under different criteria than marriage.

  2. It’s the only conclusion a sensible conservative can come to. It’s also the best compromise I can come up with. It’s too bad both sides seem totally uninterested in compromise

  3. discontinuouspermafrost

    A valid question. I’ve often wondered how one can position themselves as for “getting government out of our lives” and “anti-gay marriage” all in the same stump speech.

    Of all the things one should be able to choose for themselves, without government interference, isn’t marriage one of the most obvious?

  4. How about civil marriage for all couples?

    Not all weddings are religious in nature — some folks get married by the Justice of the Peace at the courthouse — no church or god involvement.

    We can leave decisions regarding religious meaning of marriage to churches.

    But the state should not discriminate when it comes to civil marriage.

  5. You’re right, the fact that the government got into the “marriage” business in the first place. “Holy matrimony” is a religious construct, and therefore the state should not be issuing licenses for it.

    But, can you imagine the outcry if they “took away marriage” and issued all people a civil union certificate instead? Oh lordy lordy lordy. You’ve seen how cranky some of these folks have gotten at being told “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Chirstmas”, Not pretty, not pretty at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s