The way to argue for a cause and get any kind of real change is going to take a new course of action.
Jim, my only blogger follower, you recently asked me "What a conservative do" and the question confused me. What I pride myself in is not to conform to the idea that I need to do what a party or philosophy would do but to what I would do. The conservative movement is the movement that most closely follows my ideals but I'm not quite sure they would get to some ends the same way. Perhaps they would (especially the RLC) but again I don't base my ideals on what they would do rather I do what I do and they just happen to agree much of time.
An example to a societal conundrum of current day is Gay Marriage. If asked what a conservative would do I couldn't give a shit but what I would do is limit the government's role in marriage. While everyone questions whether it should be legal or not, I question whether or not we should even ask that question. Who makes the government so mighty and powerful that they can tell us who we can and can not love for the entirety of our lives?
This should be at most the decision of the sanctioning body that instituted the marriage. If Church A doesn't allow gay marriage because they say God frowns upon it; OK. There will always be a Church B that says "Church A is out of their minds, God loves everyone and come get married here". If Nutley doesn't allow it, you know Belleville will because one group ideology in a place where people had to live together prevailed. A towns ability to issue a marriage shouldn't be more powerful than any other approved institution. We get the choice of where we want to marry and who we want to marry and get more of those choices. The only role the Government has is to set laws that One human made arrangements through a certified body IE Church, Town Hall, Cruise Ship, Little Vegas Wedding Chapel or whatever to FINANCIALLY tie the knot for life to another Human and or Humans.
Here are a slew of answers all tied into one. Could gay people marry? Of course. Polygamists, sure why not? You love each other, you have the bond and you have every right to be financially tied to that person(s) for the remainder of your life if that is your so choosing. The government has no right to intervene when it comes to whether a significant other can visit an ailing mate, if they're basing it on whether individually the socially sanctioned group to which they belong to doesn't agree. If my local, state or federal politician's religious or party affiliation doesn't agree on whom should be married it should not be allowed to be a factor on how they vote to benefit "us".
Why I write this is simple. While the socially liberal debate is to beg the government to see their own way and allow them to marry whomever they choose and socially staunch religious people beg the Government to see theirs instead, we all need to put our Government in check and remind them they work for us. We shouldn't be begging for anything. Religious zealots would not be hurt because the institution they belong to would still not issue marriages outside their core beliefs. Gay people would not be hurt because they would find many institutions that believe the same as they do and would issue the marriages. And the people we hire to employ our government can not make laws that govern on their own individual beliefs to supersede what we the people want to believe. As long as an institution validates themselves as one that can issue a marriage by the government's "should be" standard of human to human(s) their is nothing else to argue. We are protected in our freedom of choice, freedom to practice religion and freedom from an overbearing government.
if none of that makes sense forgive me... I'm heavily medicated with this bug and get dizzy to even try to proofread. :P
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Your only follower here! I have to agree 100% with everything you say. The government should have no say and I agree about polygamy...we are hypocrites if we are going to argue for marriage equality and then not actually give it by being against yet another form of marriage. I understand polygamy is creepy to alot of people and in some Mormon sects it is downright child molestation but the same exists in regular one to one marriage. The one thing I would say as a point of interest is about the government's involvement. After the marriage is legal should there even be financial benefits for the married couple? Should the government have any say in whether a couple should benefit financially from their legal union? Shouldn't people just be able to choose who they want to cover with their benefits and pay the extra premiums whether the person is even related to them or not? This could be a different road towards universal healthcare while still keeping the industry competitive. I'm not saying i support that but it's another way to look at it.
We're probably worlds apart on Healthcare, I worked in that industry before cars for a good chunk of my professional career thus far... and perhaps for my only reader I'll opine on that just for you old friend. :D
Post a Comment