Bermudians overwhelmingly rejected same-sex marriages and civil unions by a greater than two-to-one margin in the referendum yesterday.
By what right do people think they put matters like this to a referendum? The state should never interfere with marriage contracts - if you disagree with gay-marriage, then preach against it, don’t run to the banhammer. This action has no legitimacy when it tries to legislate over the personal lives of others.
Marriage is not merely a personal contract. It has always been a public union, and law requires witnesses to the exchange of consent between the parties just about everywhere. It needs to be public for the protection of the spouses, but especially for the protection of their children.
I agree that there is no reason for the state to register friendships that are not capable of producing children and can be dissolved at any time for any reason. If two or more people want to share property, it is fairly easy to write contracts detailing the property rights of each party. The flaw in your reasoning is to call a same sex union a marriage. It has entirely different ends from marriage.
I use marriage because the word has a popular definition in distinction from the sacrament of marriage. Failure to appreciate this is party responsible for the apocalyptic ramblings of “attacks on marriage” espoused by some religious people in the wake of the SCOTA ruling.
I imagine that in-lieu of a marriage contract, those performing a ceremony would ensure witnesses are present, or this state would naturally arise, in order to provide legal protection. This remove the potential for secular interference over marriage.
Yeah…if I want to marry my sister or brother, what right do the inbred, hillbilly voters have to interfere? Preach against it in your snake-handling churches if you must, but stay out of my personal life.
It’s called Democracy . . . . a form of government the Media and a lot of judges and politicians appear not to like.
Democracy isn’t mob rule of people’s private lives, by necessity it governs the actions to be taken on issues that directly effect the entire population. What you describe is tyranny of the majority, and has no place in classically liberal states.
You have an interesting opinion but political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau
would disagree with you.
What you describe is the tyranny of the minority.
How is this a tyranny? Are you being forced into a homosexual marriage? The fact that other people are doing something that you personally disagree with does not make you oppressed. You still have a right to espouse your views however distasteful they are.
The People, collectively, have a right to decide on a democratic basis and control the environment, including the moral environment, that they live in on a democratic basis without the meddling of an oligarchic super class clique.
No, it’s complete removal of government interference from the personal lives of its subjects. You do not get to run to violent or punitive force to enforce your view on a subject which is confined to the individual.
Sorry, I have to disagree with your opinion.
I didn’t say anything about using “violent” force.
Advocating that human liberty is a total license to behave or do whatever you want without regard to any moral standards held by one’s community of fellow citizens or the common good is offensive, decadent, and a warped view of human individuality.
The state is inherently violent in this regard, because if someone does not comply with the law, they can be forcibly seized and imprisoned.
Not doing something under compulsion to not do something robs the person being compelled of any moral choice - they are not moral or immoral, but merely subject to another’s will, in this case, the mob. If you wish to prevent an action for morality’s sake, then you must appeal to that person’s free will through their intellect. That is the true view of human individuality, it is not subject to cultural, peer-determined whims, and your desire for compulsion is the truly warped view.
Surely the state interferes with marriage when courts or politicians try to redefine marriage.
Surely the state interferes when a court, courts or politicians try to redefine marriage
This is the crux of the matter. It’s fascinating to me that people who oppose what two individuals choose to do can’t absorb this. One day, perhaps! I am ever hopeful on that point.
Don’t you think three or more people that love each other should be able to get legally married?
You put forth a principle that has a Government hands off view in marriage.
ucfengr asked you what if brothers and sisters want to “marry” each other too?
Yeah…if I want to marry my sister or brother, what right do the inbred, hillbilly voters have to interfere?
Trent Horn has asked (on Catholic Answers Live radio) what if “granny” wants to “marry” her grandkid?
I think ucfenger (and other readers of this thread) deserves an answer.
Why not a group of kids and old folks?
Why not throw in a few animals into the group?
Can you “marry” dead people?
I think you need to go beyond what you think about specifics and put out principles.
I’ll be interested in the principles you are going to put forth here.