Is It Government's Role to Define Marriage?

[MARIO]

Is It Government's Role to Define Marriage?
Pat Boone

Monday, March 21, 2005

In matters of government, the rights of the individual compete with those of the state, no matter what philosophy or social contract is said to be in practice. We conservatives are understood to prefer smaller government and more individual liberty, so we're scorned as hypocrites if we oppose "gay marriage." I answer as a small-government conservative, feeling not at all hypocritical:

Gays have the right, no less than "straights" have, to get married. For legal purposes, marriage is a contract between two opposite-sexed individuals. Consistent with equal protection under the law, neither gays nor straights can get married to individuals of their own sex. The argument isn't about the individual's right to choose monogamous cohabitation; it's about the state's right to establish legal definitions. To illustrate, you can call your weekend-training band of gun nuts a "militia" if you want, but don't say the government is denying your rights if it doesn't expand its definition of the militia and give you the corresponding benefits of funding or support such as restricted highway lanes for your pickup truck convoys!

READ THE REST:

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/20/163343.shtml

[Remey688]

MARIO said:

Is It Government's Role to Define Marriage?
Pat Boone

Monday, March 21, 2005

In matters of government, the rights of the individual compete with those of the state, no matter what philosophy or social contract is said to be in practice. We conservatives are understood to prefer smaller government and more individual liberty, so we're scorned as hypocrites if we oppose "gay marriage." I answer as a small-government conservative, feeling not at all hypocritical:

Gays have the right, no less than "straights" have, to get married. For legal purposes, marriage is a contract between two opposite-sexed individuals. Consistent with equal protection under the law, neither gays nor straights can get married to individuals of their own sex. The argument isn't about the individual's right to choose monogamous cohabitation; it's about the state's right to establish legal definitions. To illustrate, you can call your weekend-training band of gun nuts a "militia" if you want, but don't say the government is denying your rights if it doesn't expand its definition of the militia and give you the corresponding benefits of funding or support such as restricted highway lanes for your pickup truck convoys!

READ THE REST:

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/20/163343.shtml

Terri is going into the history books down the road. Tat's for sure. God Love Her!

[americanpride]

To answer the question in the title:


ABSOLUTELY.

The state is the definition of our legal, political, and economic relations with one another, and consequently only the state has the power to enforce laws pertaining to all of the above. Of course, state policy must be open and transparent as it is directed and mandated by the will of the citizenry (note, I did not say "the people").

The solution to our National problems is not to further erect a barrier between society and our state, but to integrate the processes and institutions of both to form a more dynamic yet stable National structure.

[dustdevil28]

MARIO said:

Is It Government's Role to Define Marriage?
Pat Boone

Monday, March 21, 2005

In matters of government, the rights of the individual compete with those of the state, no matter what philosophy or social contract is said to be in practice. We conservatives are understood to prefer smaller government and more individual liberty, so we're scorned as hypocrites if we oppose "gay marriage." I answer as a small-government conservative, feeling not at all hypocritical:

Gays have the right, no less than "straights" have, to get married. For legal purposes, marriage is a contract between two opposite-sexed individuals. Consistent with equal protection under the law, neither gays nor straights can get married to individuals of their own sex. The argument isn't about the individual's right to choose monogamous cohabitation; it's about the state's right to establish legal definitions. To illustrate, you can call your weekend-training band of gun nuts a "militia" if you want, but don't say the government is denying your rights if it doesn't expand its definition of the militia and give you the corresponding benefits of funding or support such as restricted highway lanes for your pickup truck convoys!

READ THE REST:

www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/20/163343.shtml

If gays want to bring this to court, than they have nothing to whine about when the people take action in having their government protect what is theirs.