This originates from my response (that at the time of this post is still "awaiting moderation") at The Lima News' editorials section.
In his column last weekend, Editorial Page Editor Ron Lederman offered his take on District Court Judge Vaughn Walker's overturning of California's Proposition 8.
Today, I offered my disjointed two-cents' worth.
What this issue boils-down to is an all-important question that far too few people have been asking: why is a state-issued marriage license necessary in the first place?
Once that question is addressed, the issue of who can and can't marry whom is rendered moot.
Roughly 100 years ago, as part of the Progressive movement's push to control society, state governments began requiring all couples who intended to marry and procreate to register with their county clerks for a state-approved marriage license — with part of the process including a mandatory blood test for the sake of promoting public health (which we all today ought to be able to recognize for the joke it was considering the absence of DNA testing for another 80+ years).
What's comedic is the fact states began dropping the blood test requirement over the years but never stopped requiring couples to shell out the money for that notarized piece of paper to be able to call themselves married.
In essence, marriage licenses are a modern equivalent of King George's Stamp Act.
I personally propose getting government out of the business of marriage (which is what such licenses constitute). Those companies that seek the business of same-sex couples (insurance agencies, mortgage lenders, auto financing, etc.) will do so in order to gain them as customers whether they have a marriage license or not. Those churches that recognize gay marriage will continue to do so whether they have a license or not.
The common sense resolution to this issue is returning this institution to its original process: leaving marriage to the churches to oversee and administer. Also, it wasn't until the states poked their noses into it that divorce rates began to sky-rocket. So, it's a matter of common sense unless you're a divorce lawyer who stands to lose his or her racket.
For those who feel this strongly on the subject, don't attend churches that marry people of the same gender and don't do business with companies that recognize such couples. That's the beauty of living in a free society.
At the same time, I don't agree that those who are gay warrant the kind of minority recognition or protection in the same capacity afforded to people of different ethnicities or religions. Homosexuality still boils down to a conscious choice to engage in a particular trend of behavior with others.
But, adults in America are free to make those choices — including choices with which many people disagree. If they neither pick your pocket nor break your leg (to paraphrase a Founding Father) in the process then trying to outlaw these lifestyle choices is unconstitutional.
Simultaneously, those who disagree with such lifestyles are equally as free to express that disagreement — as long as the act of doing so does not violate their civil and constitutional rights.