Tim Kelly: Minnesota- My 'civil unions' bill takes government out of marriage

Two years ago, I was one of two legislative Republicans to stand up and speak out against the marriage amendment, which sought to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman.

My reasoning was simple: I do not believe government should dictate with whom an adult should live and love, nor is it government's duty to define what marriage means to an individual.

Gay rights supporters lauded my stand. They blasted the Legislature -- rightfully so -- for wasting time on an issue that ordered government to define and accept a religious activity.

Now with the "freedom to marry" campaign, the gay marriage proponents are suggesting we should approve exactly what they fought so hard against only two years ago: forcing government involvement in your personal lives. I struggle to believe how a message that was so wrong then is somehow right today.

Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that advocates of the gay marriage bill aren't satisfied with simply treating everyone equally. The goal is now focused on utilizing the government to mandate acceptance.

Civil union is as far as the government should be allowed to go. Its purpose should only be to help decide legal issues between the two people in the union, should they arise. Marriage is the province of religion and the church.

If you want to get married, go to a church and ask for their blessing (and government has no say inside the church doors). You want legal protection, etc. between the two of you, go to a courthouse and get a civil union document. But if a church refuses to marry you, they don't need a reason, and you have no recourse but to try another church.

But if a church refuses to marry you, they don't need a reason, and you have no recourse but to try another church.

There is a church for every concept of "marriage", from the polygamy of the Mosque and eventually the Mormon church of the last GOP presidential candidate, to the gay marriage churches, to the (non)church equality of the atheist in America, and when they join the military, then the government has to decide who is married and who isn't, just as the American Congress did in 1790.

He overlooks the single most essential reason for government involvement in marriage: children. Because children have rights that they cannot protect on their own, government intervention is sometimes necessary. Mind you, there is no “right” for anyone to married. . .government won’t provide you with a spouse if you can’t afford one. . .but children need special protection. . this is the primary reason for government involvement in marriage. . .thus to redefine marriage ultimately impacts a child’s right to be raise by their biological father and mother or to be adopted by a man and woman who will serve in the capacity of father and mother.

Marriage predates government, and predates religion. There is considerable value in having those institutions recognize marriage, but the fact that an institution recognizes a marriage does not mean that marriage is a creation of that institution.

Many people, companies, and institutions voluntarily choose to extend certain social courtesies and other benefits to married couples in what is essentially a form of generalized reciprocity (meaning that they expect to indirectly benefit from doing so). Having governments record marriages benefits those who would engage in such reciprocity by allowing them to distinguish those with bona fide marriages from those who to pretend to be married when convenient to receive benefits. Those who would argue in favor of "gay marriage" from a claimed libertarian angle need to be asked whether and how they will oppose any efforts by same-sex couples to demand that any person, company, or institution that voluntarily gives benefits to married couples must involuntarily give such benefits to same-sex couples as well. The whole reason gay people are demanding "marriage" rather than "civil unions" is that they know that many who choose to give benefits to married couples would not give such benefits to same-sex couples unless forced to do so. Such coercion stands in direct opposition to everything libertarians claim to stand for.

It's possible that some people do support "gay marriage" from a libertarian perspective, oblivious to the kind of coercive power the movement is seeking. The real goal of the "gay marriage" movement, however, is to make it difficult or impossible to extend benefits or courtesies to married couples without also extending such benefits to same-sex couples.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.