Charles Krauthammer has a column on the subject out today. I agree with most of his points. It seems ridiculous to me to have an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America on an issue such as marriage - gay, straight, or whatever. Should there also be an amendment lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph? Or banning the sale of cigarettes? No. The purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee to the people certain rights and priveleges and to prevent incursions on those rights by the government. It should not be used to enshrine or prevent whatever concept is trendy or fashionable at the time.
Personally, I have no problem with the concept of "civil unions". I don't think it would cause an implosion of the republic to allow a person to designate another as his or her legal beneficiary whatever the other person's sex may be. This can be done in a regulated way, requiring applicants to meet whatever standards are deemed legally necessary. The larger problem that I see is that of the government performing a religious sacrament, marriage, in the first place. Should the government also conduct the Eucharist? Or issue five daily calls to prayer? No. That is and should be the domain of religious institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment