Gay marriage editorial

I truly feel for the lady featured in a recent Chronicle article.

Apparently the parents of her deceased partner removed personal items, took retirement funds, and moved the body. It is horrifying how people will sometimes treat fellow human beings, especially in a time of sorrow. This woman suffered the death of a loved one. No one should be treated this way. Gay marriage aside, this is a human issue.

What’s worse, it could have been easily prevented. There are legal ramifications to any relationship that involves things of material value. Contracts are necessary and desirable. People do this all the time to protect their interests and to prevent other parties from acting against their wishes. A lot of heartache could have been avoided.

But may we question what really happened here? Retirement plans and life insurance policies list beneficiaries and owners. No one can intervene without showing cause in court. Wills, auto titles, deeds, loans, and rental agreements all name the parties involved. So are there facts we don’t know about? It doesn’t seem to add up.

Ok, so what about gay marriage? Some of you are probably waiting to pounce with name calling and hysterical invective, but we can discuss and disagree without such histrionics, right? As I mentioned in a prior column, I am a conservative who sometimes leans libertarian. Now, libertarians do not believe that they must keep their mouths shut about moral issues. They believe that government must keep its mouth shut about moral issues.

First, I oppose a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. The purpose of the Constitution is to tell government what it can and cannot do. It defines and limits government. You know, if this basic concept was better understood, a lot of legal controversies would simply disappear.

A constitutional amendment about marriage wouldn’t be about defining the powers of government, it would impact the private relationships of The People. Therefore, those who want to amend the Constitution need to deal with their convictions in some other way.

Second, marriage is a religious institution. Government should leave marriage to the church. If you want to get married, find a church that will solemnize your relationship. For some reason, however, there is this misplaced desire to get gay marriage legalized, as if the legal and moral approval of society must be extracted to affirm love and commitment.

We need to be clear, civil marriage is an expression of law. There is no right to marriage. No one is suppressing anyone’s rights. Indeed, government is the only party that can suppress rights.

Marriage is a privilege granted by government. That’s why there’s a marriage license. You see, there are already lots of people who cannot marry due to age, genetic relationship, or even due to the fact that they are presently married. Their rights are not being violated either.

Indeed, government has made many laws that regulate marriage, to the point that it is barely recognizable as an expression of religion. Government has invaded all kinds of other religious activities as well, all of which violate the Constitution. What part of “Congress shall make no law…” don’t we understand?

Third, government should get out of marriage and religion. Churches should drop their tax-exempt status - - they are exchanging silence on politics for a payoff. And people should stop looking for approval for the way they lead their lives.

You might be a person interested in being legally acknowledged by society. You might suggest that all loving, committed relationships are noble. And certainly there is a certain satisfaction in rubbing the gay marriage issue in the nose of those homophobes who disagree with you.

I grant all of that, but inviting the further presence of government into our private relationships can only lead to oppression. We don’t need more government.