The State Is Hate!
Recently, the California Supreme Court legislated that same-sex marriages be legal in the state. I’m going to put aside the separation of powers/will of the people/judicial activism nonsense and just discuss the true morality of this decision, and more importantly, its effect on all our personal liberties.
To my knowledge, the state of California already had legalized civil unions which had all the same perks, subsidies and rights as a real marriage. It was marriage in everything but name, so to speak.
Oh, how far statism and totalitarianism has come. We have all become so emotional and passionate about yet another activity that our elected oppressors claim the right to give or deny us permission to engage in. Homosexual activists and leaders: Is your love less real or true without State Sanction? Is it so weak that you cannot last without a worthless piece of paper printed by some shiftless lazy clerk in your local town hall for $40? Those of you with moral objections to “gay marriage”: Is your moral compass so weak that it sways with the will of the State? Can you not continue to raise your children and teach them that these same sex couples are not “marriages” just because our local Stalins and Hitlers tell us that they are?
This is the real issue: Why does ANYONE require a State-Issued license, blood test and fee in order to have a religious ceremony for the purpose of promising to spend their lives together? Why is there a group of subsidies and tax breaks in place for the benefit of people who chose to partake in this life choice? Why is there a Government in existence with the power to make such laws and decisions and then set them in such a way that we end up with a contentious issue that so divides us and creates such resentment and intolerance?
This entire issue and all its side effects are the fault of The State. The State set up certain subsidies for married couples. The State failed to make these subsidies and legal rights available to gay couples. The State allowed campaigns to be waged to “ban” gay marriage and The State allowed challenges to be brought before its judges who overturned the bans. The result? More resentment and dischord.
My point is, WITHOUT THE STATE, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT. People would be free to associate in any way that they so please without interference from clerks, judges, lawyers, legislators, or tax collectors. People could marry or not marry without having to consider the tax benefits or penalties associated with such a decision. The transferability of a retirement account or health plan would be negotiated between spouse and employer, and there would be no Leviathan to come around and steal 50% of it in the event of a spouse’s death.
It is genius, really, how The State has set us against each other in a way that acts to legitimize its almighty authority. You see, every time you get red in the face towards someone who disagrees with your position, you don’t win the argument. Neither does your opponent. The State wins, for you have been discussing how the Boss should treat his underlings when you should have been discussing nothing more than how free people should treat each other.
Finally, my take on the morality of this issue. I am a believing Christian, I believe that homosexuality itself is a sin. I do not disassociate with anyone because they are a homosexual, I am in no way hateful of them. I am far less hateful than some of the pro-gay marriage activists are towards Christians. In my moral compass, two people of the same sex can not be married, whether The State says they can or not. State sanction or no state sanction, two men playing house is not a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and per the writings of all the religions I am cognizant of, it is required to be between two people of the opposite sex. They come together in a ceremony to be recognized by God as bound in matrimony. Homosexuals tend to deny God, deny that their lifestyle is sinful, and thus cannot be married. I would go so far as to say that atheists are not capable of marriage either. If you deny something, how can you ask to be recognized by it? This is my opinion, and I would not require anyone to agree with it for any purpose. It is a personal opinion that I would not discuss with anyone if we weren’t living under such tyranny that this issue need be raised.
Conversely, if you are a homosexual who believes that ‘marriage is love’ (as the bumper-sticker says), my opinion cannot at all affect your opinion or your life. While you will chose your life partner, have some sort of ceremony, live faithfully with them for the rest of your life, I may shake my head or roll my eyes to myself. But it will not change anything about they way you live, as I do not believe that I or any man should be granted power over you or your choices by the way of judicial fiat, strength of numbers in a “democratic” election, dictatorial decree or executive order. (Sorry, those last two were somewhat redundant.)
Let us end all this hatred, resentment and bigotry. DOWN WITH THE STATE!!!
To my knowledge, the state of California already had legalized civil unions which had all the same perks, subsidies and rights as a real marriage. It was marriage in everything but name, so to speak.
Oh, how far statism and totalitarianism has come. We have all become so emotional and passionate about yet another activity that our elected oppressors claim the right to give or deny us permission to engage in. Homosexual activists and leaders: Is your love less real or true without State Sanction? Is it so weak that you cannot last without a worthless piece of paper printed by some shiftless lazy clerk in your local town hall for $40? Those of you with moral objections to “gay marriage”: Is your moral compass so weak that it sways with the will of the State? Can you not continue to raise your children and teach them that these same sex couples are not “marriages” just because our local Stalins and Hitlers tell us that they are?
This is the real issue: Why does ANYONE require a State-Issued license, blood test and fee in order to have a religious ceremony for the purpose of promising to spend their lives together? Why is there a group of subsidies and tax breaks in place for the benefit of people who chose to partake in this life choice? Why is there a Government in existence with the power to make such laws and decisions and then set them in such a way that we end up with a contentious issue that so divides us and creates such resentment and intolerance?
This entire issue and all its side effects are the fault of The State. The State set up certain subsidies for married couples. The State failed to make these subsidies and legal rights available to gay couples. The State allowed campaigns to be waged to “ban” gay marriage and The State allowed challenges to be brought before its judges who overturned the bans. The result? More resentment and dischord.
My point is, WITHOUT THE STATE, WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS ARGUMENT. People would be free to associate in any way that they so please without interference from clerks, judges, lawyers, legislators, or tax collectors. People could marry or not marry without having to consider the tax benefits or penalties associated with such a decision. The transferability of a retirement account or health plan would be negotiated between spouse and employer, and there would be no Leviathan to come around and steal 50% of it in the event of a spouse’s death.
It is genius, really, how The State has set us against each other in a way that acts to legitimize its almighty authority. You see, every time you get red in the face towards someone who disagrees with your position, you don’t win the argument. Neither does your opponent. The State wins, for you have been discussing how the Boss should treat his underlings when you should have been discussing nothing more than how free people should treat each other.
Finally, my take on the morality of this issue. I am a believing Christian, I believe that homosexuality itself is a sin. I do not disassociate with anyone because they are a homosexual, I am in no way hateful of them. I am far less hateful than some of the pro-gay marriage activists are towards Christians. In my moral compass, two people of the same sex can not be married, whether The State says they can or not. State sanction or no state sanction, two men playing house is not a marriage. Marriage is a religious institution, and per the writings of all the religions I am cognizant of, it is required to be between two people of the opposite sex. They come together in a ceremony to be recognized by God as bound in matrimony. Homosexuals tend to deny God, deny that their lifestyle is sinful, and thus cannot be married. I would go so far as to say that atheists are not capable of marriage either. If you deny something, how can you ask to be recognized by it? This is my opinion, and I would not require anyone to agree with it for any purpose. It is a personal opinion that I would not discuss with anyone if we weren’t living under such tyranny that this issue need be raised.
Conversely, if you are a homosexual who believes that ‘marriage is love’ (as the bumper-sticker says), my opinion cannot at all affect your opinion or your life. While you will chose your life partner, have some sort of ceremony, live faithfully with them for the rest of your life, I may shake my head or roll my eyes to myself. But it will not change anything about they way you live, as I do not believe that I or any man should be granted power over you or your choices by the way of judicial fiat, strength of numbers in a “democratic” election, dictatorial decree or executive order. (Sorry, those last two were somewhat redundant.)
Let us end all this hatred, resentment and bigotry. DOWN WITH THE STATE!!!