REAL Marriage Equality

realequalityI see a lot of equality and M+F pictures on Facebook and this is MY rebuttal and my stance for some time.

This country was founded on the idea that all power was vested in the People. Any power not held by the People cound not be ceded to the government to control or regulate.

If this is true, then when did the People ever have jurisdiction to tell their neighbors that they could or could not marry whoever? We never had that right, yet here today we are demanding that the government afford us marriage.




Until we realize that the government, especially the Federal Government, has no right to regulate marriage, we will NEVER have equality. There, I said it, now go love whoever you want and quit worrying about the damn government verifying your love.


2 Responses to “REAL Marriage Equality”

  1. 26 March 2013 at 19:20

    Wow. Really nicely done. I, too, commented on this same issue earlier today. Check it out, if you are so inclined.

    Keep blogging!

  2. 2 leatherneckbiker
    28 March 2013 at 03:24

    The questions posed are basically the same. What gives the government the right to regulate marriage? The problem with the original comments was that the logic used only touched the surface of an emotional argument without really developing a solid foundation for the premise that the government doesn’t have a right to regulate marriage.

    In any given society, acceptable behavior within that community is determined by the societal norms. Whether those behaviors are agreed upon by other societies is irrelevant. Those societal norms influence the behaviors that the majority of the people engage in and establish what is and what is not acceptable behaviors. These norms eventually become the foundation for the laws and regulations within the government of that society. The type of government will change the level of influence the members of the society has (dictatorship vs. democracy), but it is a given that the influence does occur. Those laws then, affect the behavior of all members of the society and force those outlying personalities to conform or suffer the consequences of their behaviors.

    So what defines a right or a privilege? Generally speaking (keeping in mind the axiom that extreme circumstances make bad laws) then, a “normal” society with regard for basic human rights would most likely decide that the difference between a right and a privilege would be based, among other things, upon how a particular behavior might affect the other members of that society. (First, let us take for granted that we are not discussing things such as genetic, physical characteristics that are beyond the control of the individual.) If I owned a large farm and decided to allow my ten-year-old child to drive my pickup truck within the confines of my property without affecting anyone around me, then that is my right. My actions, and the consequences are my own. But if I want to let that same child drive on public roads, then my actions have the potential to affect other members of society, so that society has the right to evaluate and authorize his ability to drive so now it becomes a privilege. In our republic, “we the people” have given our right to determine who can operate motor vehicles on public roads to the government. The government exercises this control by requiring a license for the “privilege” of driving and establishing guidelines necessary to obtain that license.

    So then, is marriage a privilege or a right? We determine the answer to that question by determining whether or not that marriage will have an effect on other members of the society. In our America today as it has been in civilization after civilization throughout history, the answer is unequivocally, yes. Stepping away from the moral or religious arguments, there are government regulations regarding many aspects of our lives that are affected by an individual’s marital status as well as their status in a familial unit. There are family plans for insurance, tax benefits for families, legal issues regarding survivor-ship of estates and other personal property, social support programs for families of those who are or have become disabled and even consumer benefits such as family plans for cellular phone use. All of these and more depend upon an established, legal standard for what is a family and what is a marriage. So, like driving the truck, a person has the right to engage in an emotional and physical relationship with whomever they choose (as long as they follow the laws regarding age, mental fitness, and consent as established by society) within the privacy of their own property, but to have their relationship recognized and validated outside of that private property society has the right to evaluate and authorize that relationship. Again, “we the people” have given our right to determine what is and is not a marriage to the government who has established a set of requirements to receive a license for the “privilege” of having the title of marriage applied to your relationship. This has been done to protect the facilitators of the benefits listed from unmanageable situations and given them a concrete standard on what is and what is not a marriage.

    So with the understanding that society has the right to establish behavioral norms to protect members of that society from the behaviors of other members and with the understanding that the society’s government facilitates that protection by regulating privileges. Then with the further understanding that marriage falls under the umbrella of privilege, the question is whom do we have a right to marry?

    “Until we realize that the government, especially the Federal Government, has no right to regulate marriage, we will NEVER have equality.” If we try to create a “right” out of something that is actually a “privilege” we will inevitably infringe upon a true right somewhere else in society. While we as individuals have the right to fall in love with whomever we wish, we do not have the right to marry whomever we wish in this country. At the basic level, you must meet the requirements of species, mental fitness, age, and consent. You do not have the right to marry an animal, someone underage or not of sound mind, or someone that doesn’t want to marry you. Furthermore, in most cases, you can only have one legal spouse at a time.

    So to the real point, do homosexual marriages infringe upon the rights of others within the society? The answer is absolutely yes. We have religious rights that will be infringed upon. If same-sex unions become a right, then that protection, afforded by the government, could cause a religious organization to be threatened with human rights violations for refusal to cater to same-sex couples. There are several recent examples of services provided by religious organizations or businesses being shut down or relocated because of legal issues caused by state recognition or legalization of same-sex unions. It’s not just religious freedoms. Article 7 of UNICEFs “Convention on the Rights of a Child” established that children had the right to be raised by, know, and carry the name of their biological parents. They stated that the only way to ensure those rights were upheld was by the strengthening of the “traditional” view of marriage and family. Private schools, businesses, churches and charities are now being threatened with lawsuits for not embracing the “diversity” of same-sex unions.

    The worst part is that its really only about the name. Most states have long recognized the concept of “civil unions” and “domestic partnerships” and businesses have followed suit providing many of the same benefits. The only thing there is to gain is a piece of paper and validation. But that validation is, over and over, eroding true rights of other members of our society.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain



%d bloggers like this: