Tuesday, November 2, 2010

A Special Election Day Post

Before you shut me off, please understand that my political beliefs are driven by one mantra: The government should provide basic infrastructure, and other than that should allow me to take care of my own needs and give others the opportunity to do the same. I am an Ayn Rand Libertarian to the core.

I have many friends and family on either extreme and everywhere in between, and I only ask that people vote their values. Eschew party lines and research your candidates and what they stand for, and vote appropriately. When you only follow party politics, you are allowing people to make decisions for you that are completely out of touch with your family's needs. Also, never overlook your local government, right down to school board and county commissioners. These are the people that make decisions that affect your daily life. I will never understand people who only vote every 4 years.

So, besides taxes and the economy, here is the *radical* idea that I support in regards to one of the biggest hot button issues out there:

The government should not recognize marriage.

(Collective gasp, now gather yourselves and listen.) Marriage was never designed to be a legal contract, it was designed to be an expression of commitment between people in love, and at times their God. Where our country went wrong was recognizing this as a legal union and assigning tax benefits and other benefits just because people made a commitment to one another.

If we all had to enter our own taxes as our own person, imagine the possibilities. People who are in support of marriage between one male and one female ONLY could make sure that their church only accepted and performed marriages in those types of unions. Likewise, our gay and lesbian citizens would be free to marry one another and make the exact same lifelong commitment in their own religious organizations, and if you are okay with that, then I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem attending services there. Imagine if we all the freedom and liberty to marry who we want, and the GOVERNMENT DIDN'T HAVE A SAY IN THE MATTER AT ALL**.

Why do we have to make it about getting special rights only allowed by the government to certain unions? Why should we even allow the government to decide who we can marry? Why do I get "special credit" for choosing to enter into a legal union with my husband? Before I met him, I always said that I didn't need a piece of paper to make a commitment to someone. What I meant then is on the opposite end of the scale of how I think now, but I still feel the same way: my marriage ceremony was a promise to my husband and my God that I would spend my life with one and only one person. Signing a marriage certificate didn't change that in any way. I don't even remember the marriage certificate now. I remember the service and making that commitment in front of all the people I love.

I know that this idea will never fly in our current government, because the Right wants to define marriage their way, and the Left wants to make sure everyone can get special insurance, but I encourage everyone to think about the possibility of a country with true liberty and what we can do when the government isn't busy protecting us from ourselves.

**Also, there would never be another child referred to as a Bastard.**


  1. Well said! I'm looking forward to reading more. I love your point that God never intended it to be a contract, but rather a commitment.

  2. I think you make a very valid point (that I like!). But what happens to people who decide to break their commitments to one another? Who decides who gets the kids, house, etc? How would that work into this plan?

  3. D...it's never a perfect plan, is it? Ideally, as a Libertarian, I would hope that people could act as civilized adults. However, we all know that's not happening!

    In cases where children are born into a family, there would have to be some sort of litigation between parties and a mediator. As with any radical plan, it requires an overhaul of everything that makes sense to us now, but sometimes that is what is needed for compromise.

  4. Interesting. I have to chew on this before I agree or disagree. However this is a view I haven't heard before and it got me thinking! Thanks for sharing.