Don't Make Defining Marriage a Battle Between Hate and Tolerance

I believe that we should support and encourage the institution of marriage because “it is the single most important institution for strengthening children, families, and society.”*  This is not just a Christian or religious argument, it is a societal one.

People should not feel like they are engaged in a battle between hate and tolerance.  There are other implications than just prejudice and tolerance.  Can’t we discuss these implications without being labeled a hater or an immoral heathen?   

There is a popular argument that you can’t legislate morality.  I think this is false because all legislation is based on morals and feelings, whether philosophical or religious.  Everything from zoning laws, to taxes, to drug control, to abortion, to violent crimes, are regulated by moral considerations on a varying scale of severity.  The question is, whose morals will legislation favor? 

I don’t think it’s bad to stand up for what you think is right, whether it is based on religious or secular moral philosophy.  There will always be a battle of ideas for what we feel is right for our society and those ideas will turn into legislation that dictates how we are governed.

 

Although Christians have the right to express their freedom of speech and make arguments based on the Bible and prophets, I think there is also a compelling reason to support marriage between a man and a woman because it is the basic unit that holds our society together.  

I’m all for “live and let live” when it comes to allowing people to do what they want within the walls of their own home—as long as it doesn’t violate the rights or safety of others.  People are already given equal rights to have the type of relationship they choose.  No one needs the government’s endorsement to take advantage of those rights.  So it comes down to two main things they hope to accomplish—receiving tax benefits and being culturally accepted as normal and okay.  

I don’t agree with the cultural acceptance of homosexuality or the recognition of gay marriage as an alternative to a nuclear family with a mother and father.  I would fight to give homosexuals their right to live their private lives how they choose and to make sure their life, liberty, and property are protected—but that doesn’t mean I would endorse behavior I disagree with or sit silently as society devalues the family unit and the importance of raising children with a mother and a father.  

Concerning tax benefits, the government has the right to impose taxes and allow tax breaks to incentivize behaviors that they feel promote the well-being of the nation.  Tax breaks for families and children have long been implemented to encourage growth of a stable society.  I’m open to the argument that the tax break doesn’t achieve this because marriages don’t stay intact just because they are getting a tax break.  But if that’s true, get rid of it.  Don’t extend it to another group who is equally or arguably less likely to raise up a strong family.  I would rather see the government get out of the business of marriage and leave individuals to make their own private commitments to relationships, than to have the government morph its definition of marriage and impose new regulations on everyone in order to accommodate alternative lifestyles.   

There are many other implications to consider, and as we discuss how to live in a society together where we all have different values and perspectives, we should engage in these policy implications with a spirit of understanding, rather than framing the issue as a fight between equality and religion.  Division will never create equality, no matter who the Court sides with.