Government Should Repeal Marriage Laws & Stay Out Of It

[dolfan]

I think the ethical argument to this issue is inescapable. The REASON we have laws in the first place is to reflect the understanding of what is morally acceptable by the populace. This was originally, at least in the US case, based mostly on the Bible.

One could easily apply all the arguments outlined in this entire post to a similar argument where the word "marriage" was replaced with the word "murder".

The difference between a Republic (which we were created to be) and a democracy is that in a Republic, certain things are ALWAYS wrong and cannot be changed (absolutes) but in a democracy whatever the majority can vote in is what is "acceptable".

Our country is becoming a democracy, and that is sad.

I thought about that, too. I mean, why shouldn't the government regulate marriage. Government regulates lots of things for what are quite obviously moral reasons, and homicide laws are a good example of that. I would point out, though, that in a nation where we have laws ad nauseum on assault, homicide, wrongful death, and any number of other life-protecting laws, abortion is legal and courts and legislatures are out there defining what "life" is. According to most of our laws, a 10 week old fetus is not a "person", and its "life" doesn't count -- so, it can be snuffed for practically any reason or no reason. While the good of homicide laws is acceptable, we have to ask ourselves if Government really is in a position to define what life is. I'd say no, and to the extent it does so in contradiction of God's definition of it, it is a tainted exercise of power and a corrupt one that cannot be simply ignored in favor of its right and propery exercise of authority in those areas of "life" that happen to coincide with a traditionally moral view of "life".

Besides, government cannot "define" a life away, can it? That is to say how can government define a life into existence or out of existence. It can't do that, biologically. But, it can define a "marriage" in and out of existence. That it may regulate marriage in ways that do happen on certain points to align with a Judeo-Christian or traditional, moral view of marriage does not cure the corrupt taint of its definition of marriage as happening between two homosexuals, its rendering of marriage as a contractual matter, or its deconstruction of marriage into a series of equitable judgment calls when the relationship fails.

So, yeah, while you could at least in some places make that word substitution, the differences are quite vast. Replacing the word as you suggest does not make the argument invalid.