The Indiana Senate is discussing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Last Wednesday the amendment passed the Judiciary Committee, which means it will go before the full Senate. If it passes the Senate and the House, it would be on the ballot for the 2008 general election.
For some reason, instead of having a discussion about whether or not government should define marriage in the first place, the discussion is all about how they should define it. How would you feel about having to get a government license in order to date someone? How about a license to be friends with someone? To me, these ideas are as ridiculous as obtaining a license in order to get married. Marriage is a social issue and should not require government intervention or permission.
Getting government out of marriage would solve the whole debate. Contrary to alarmists, society would not crumble and heterosexual families would not suddenly fall apart. Well, not anymore than they do already; it's not like government's definition of marriage has been keeping the divorce rate low.
I think Doug Stanhope summed it up well:
“If marriage didn't exist, would you ever invent it? Would you look at her and go, 'This stuff we've got together is so good – we've got to get the government in on this! This is way too powerful for just two people, we need regulation on this, we need some legislation!' You wouldn't invent that.”
This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad.