The way I see it there are three points of view when it comes to same-sex “marriage.” There’s the one the homosexual activists support — the government should sanction their marriages the same way they sanction traditional marriage. Then there’s the Focus on the Family view — same-sex “marriage” should be banned because it’s an idea that comes straight from the pits of hell. The third view is one that isn’t talked about very much — the government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning marriage at all, it’s a private religious matter.

The Homosexual Activist View

Homosexual activists say their marriages and families would be just like heterosexual marriages. There’s no difference between a family headed by two men and a family with a man and a woman. In their view, two women can raise children just as successfully as a mommy and a daddy. They want to force their moral views on the rest of society.

Homosexual couples want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to making medical decisions for their partners, inheriting property and bank accounts, etc. I maintain that they can have all those things without marriage. All they have to do is draw up legal documents stating who is to make their medical decisions for them if they become incapacitated. A simple will would take care of inheritance and if they buy property with both their names on the survivor will automatically get the property in most states.

The Focus on the Family View

The Focus on the Family crowd wants the government to ban same-sex “marriage” and sanction only heterosexual marriages. They say the family is the building block of society and if you allow homosexuals to marry it will erode the family. The family started to erode long before homosexual activists started demanding special rights.

The advent of no-fault divorce started the downward spiral of the family unit. Lots of kids already live in a household that does not contain both their biological parents. Southern Baptists, who are some of the most outspoken opponents of gay marriage, have a divorce rate just as high as the rest of society.

The Libertarian View

I don’t agree with either of these views.

I happen to believe the government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning marriage at all. It’s a private religious matter between a man, a woman and God. As a Christian that’s what I believe. As a Libertarian, I say you’re free to believe differently if you want. If your god will sanction a different kind of marriage, then that’s between you and your god.

If you don’t believe in a god, then you should have the option of creating a legal document that says you’re committed to one another for life. (But you can’t call it marriage, because that’s a religious term. “Separation of church and state.”)

One last note:

[I]s it possible for a Christian couple to avoid the state’s machinery of control and still marry before God? Yes, according to pastor Matt Trewhella. “What’s recorded in a family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their family Bibles. So should we.”³

References:

1. Supporters of constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage rally
2. Ban Same-Sex “Marriage” By Letting People Vote
3. Stay single, young man!

“Marriage, as conceived by God, is a good and fruitful thing. Marriage, as conceived by the state, is an evil man-trap designed to deprive men of their property and their children.”

Vox Day on WorldNetDaily.com

I couldn’t have said it better myself. When I got married, I asked the Baptist preacher if he would marry a couple without a license? Law abiding citizen that he was, he said no.

We need more preachers like Matt Trewhella who says, “What’s recorded in a family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their family Bibles. So should we.”

Amen, brother. Preach on!