Questioning the Governments Gay Marriage Ban

I wrote this in response to the following list: 12 reasons for banning Gay Marriage. I am just posting it now but I will more than likely expand on it later. Mainly I want to ask can our government ban gay marriage under its current working philosophy, not whether gay marriage is correct or not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting list, one which I whole heartily agree with. But I think there is an underlying assumption that I don't agree with, that the government is the institution to define marriage. This seems really bogus to me, the only legitimate reasons, that I can see, where the government has taken over the role as defining marriage fall into three categories:

(1) To give out extra benefits to encourage families, i.e. tax breaks for building population.

(2) To determine property rights at the end of a marriage.

(3) To oppress those whose marriages are "unsanctified".

(2) is merely a semantic issue that could simple be redefined in a more appropriate manner. (3) is something that societies should, maybe I am being facetious calling it a legitimate reason, avoid but alas history can point to numerous cases where it doesn't. But (1), has a little bit more merit than I think people give credit.

But before I say anything about (1), marriage has been a religious construct in every society for probably all of civilization. It is one of the major tenets of almost every religion. For good reason, people who are committed to one another seem to be better individuals rather than alone. This of course doesn't hold in every case. But the role of marriage in the lives of people differ greatly, from merely a contract of procreation and political maneuver to a romantic encounter nutured throughout the people's lives. At any rate, gay marriage seems to be largely a modern construct. I can point to history where gay lifestyles are not considered immoral but gay marriage seems not to be done. Although this rambling is nice, it does not bring any light to why the current US government should not allow for gay marriage, especially since it seems to be condoned by religion rather than government regulations. Thus to promote marriage at all seems, the government is condoning a religious stance.

But the fact remains that for many people marriage is a societal construct, with no bearing from religion. In this manner the government, recognizes this construct and awards it with tax breaks. These tax breaks could be recognized as a way to better society, just like tax breaks for car pooling, or extra taxes on cigarettes, but if that is the case one has to ask if heterosexual marriage brings any benefits to society over homosexual marriage. But these advantages can be given for more specific reasons over not allowing marriage,i.e. if tax breaks are given for car poolers we don't revoke your drivers license if you don't car pool. So saying that two people can't be married because they won't qualify for some benefits seems illogical.

One resolution is to allow for marriage of all people, but that seems to be a religious construct that too many ties have been attached to. Another solution is to de-emphasize the government's role in marriage, maybe only hand out civil unions. It would be awkward I agree, and but it would also uphold the separation of church and state mentality that the government has been working off of for the last 50 years.