Comments on: Should the government have anything to do with marriage? http://deanebarker.net/blog/post/482 It's like an electronic mirror, into which I can gaze. Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:46:33 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Josh http://deanebarker.net/blog/post/482/comment-page-1#comment-14979 Josh Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:22:19 +0000 http://deanebarker.net/blog/post/482#comment-14979 I completely agree (with the quoted bit)... currently marriage is tied to taxes, life insurance, 401(k) beneficiaries, etc, etc which has made marriage a government institution and as such should have the non-discrimination fully apply. As long as the government is involved, it's discrimination to arbitrarily decide who can partake of a right (regardless of the religious traditions, which should not be considered relevant to any discussion about the government). It saddens me greatly that even "liberal" states like California have decided that discrimination is a-ok. Personally I'm fine if you want to call it a "civil union" and have "marriage" be something that happens in a church. (For what it's worth... I am a straight married male with a daughter). I completely agree (with the quoted bit)… currently marriage is tied to taxes, life insurance, 401(k) beneficiaries, etc, etc which has made marriage a government institution and as such should have the non-discrimination fully apply.

As long as the government is involved, it’s discrimination to arbitrarily decide who can partake of a right (regardless of the religious traditions, which should not be considered relevant to any discussion about the government). It saddens me greatly that even “liberal” states like California have decided that discrimination is a-ok.

Personally I’m fine if you want to call it a “civil union” and have “marriage” be something that happens in a church.

(For what it’s worth… I am a straight married male with a daughter).

]]>