michaelnewbern.com

Today, many of my friends are changing their Facebook profile pictures to a pink equal sign on a red background in support of marriage equality. I am not. Here’s why.

First, it’s important that I make my views on marriage known. Marriage is a religious institution. It always has been and always will be. What two people, their church, and their God define as marriage should be marriage. It’s an issue of individual liberty. End of story.

Today, the US Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a suit to overturn Proposition 8. Both sides will be arguing that their definition of marriage is constitutional. Both sides will be working to use the force of government to impose their will and morality onto others.

This is antithetical to what we should really be advancing; liberty. I wrote about it once before. The words bear repeating.

The government promotes certain behavior through the use of discriminatory policy. With respect to marriage, the government is supporting biological reproduction by awarding special consideration to those that enter into a traditional marriage. This special consideration comes by way of tax reduction.

By giving special consideration to heterosexual couples, the government is discriminating against anyone who does not enter into a heterosexual marriage. By giving special consideration to parents, the government is discriminating against anyone who does not have children.

Wanna stay single? Can’t have that! We’re gonna make you pay higher taxes until you hitch up.

Hey autistic boy, sucks to be you! Yeah, you’re socially adjusted just enough to keep a job and not go to jail. But because you can’t maintain a relationship and will never marry, we’re going to punish you with higher taxes.

Hey, lady with the non-functioning uterus! Can’t bear children? Not enough money to adopt. Congratulations! You win a life of higher taxes!

I challenge ANYONE to justify tax breaks for married couples or parents after reading those last three paragraphs.

This is where most proponents and opponents of gay marriage have it wrong.  Instead of encouraging government intervention in something that should be a holy rite, they should be trying to remove legislation from it. Instead of encouraging the government to legislate certain behaviors, they should be working to restore the right to choose.

So, how do we solve the problems of insurance, hospital visits, and the myriad of other reasons some people use to argue for gay marriage? Easy. We remove all government control and allow individuals to enter into contracts that ensure both parties are equally served.

The purpose of laws and our legal system is to protect the innocent from those that wish to do them harm or who do them harm through negligence. This protection is provided in the deterrent of punishment and removing those who do not value others.  Anything else is the legislation of morality and has no place in a free society, my country, the United States of America.

A government that can tell us certain behavior is acceptable based on the whims of a majority can also tell us certain behavior is unacceptable based on the whims of a majority. The rights of the minority, the smallest of which is the individual, are trampled in the process. I like to refer to that as “mob rule.”