Since I’ve already written that polygamy – regardless of how weird it is – is not something that demands government intervention, you won’t be surprised that I also think that gay marriage is a non-issue.
I don’t care if two guys want to get together. I don’t care if some religion (or some other group) wants to sanction their union, and I don’t care if they want to call it marriage, or make up some new word.
But I also don’t care if some churches don’t want to sanction same-sex unions. And I don’t care if some religious people don’t want to give approval to such relationships.
The good thing about freedom is that there is room for diversity. We all don’t have to be the same and think the same.
Unless, of course, government is involved. Then private differences become policy disputes.
This is why I urged non-intervention in this CNN discussion about whether local governments should discriminate against a restaurant chain merely because the top executive has religious beliefs that irk some politicians.
Some of these local politicians are nothing but Chavez-style thugs, willing to use government coercion for arbitrary and capricious reasons. I hope my disdain was apparent in the interview.
P.S. Just to show I’m consistent, here’s my post urging that Bush’s pro-marriage program be defunded.
P.P.S. And for those who appreciate humor, there are good gay marriage one-liners among the rest of the jokes you can peruse here, here, and here.
[…] not whether gay marriage is right or wrong (I’ve always wondered why government should have any role in marriage, but that’s a separate […]
[…] even if the motivating force is hostility to gay couples? After all, why should the government have any role in sanctioning a marriage? In think that’s the right question whether we’re talking […]
[…] haven’t written about gay marriage for the simple reason that I don’t think the state should have any role in marriage. That includes President Bush’s wasteful pro-marriage […]
[…] I also think marriage should be a private institution with no role for government, though if you read the details of the article, it appears that Godwin has the same […]
[…] worth, I don’t think it’s a role of government to sanction any kind of marriage (or to persecute people based on their beliefs), so I definitely think this issue is a […]
[…] safe, but it has resources to implement Soviet-style revenue tactics (and don’t forget the city is against free speech as well). Rate this:Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
I don’t get why anybody cares either way. I mean really, come on, what we call marriage now isn’t the same thing marriage was even a couple hundred years ago there were special certificates for the wealthy, but there wasn’t a peice of paper saying, “Hey, the government recognizes as a married couple”. The government is involved in to many. I’m married but I do not have a peice of paper saying so, and if I ever do it will be awhile. The only importance of it is tax breaks and insurance. People aren’t bound together anymore by love, now their love is “legal”.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Very much worth reading. Honestly, many of these local potentates are little more than political thugs hiding their hatreds and enviousness behind the cloak of government. They need to be held accountable.
If a business permit is just a certificate that allows you to do business because local government officials approve of your speech, then to hell with business permits.