re: marriage licenses for homosexual couples

i'm definitely not a card-carryin' Republican, though my views do tend to lean conservatively.   i am an atheist, and an independent in the voting booth.   and i've got nothing against homosexuals (though i'm not one).

marriage originated as a union before god (i use lower case g intentionally) and is essentially a religious matter.   it was never intended by the founders of our democratic republic that our government meddle in the private lives of its citizens, and specifically not in matters of religious observance.   being required to file an application for marriage with the government is fundamentally wrong, and serves no public interest- unless you count the revenue collected from those licenses (which is probably more than eaten up by the bureaucracy which processes them).   government's claim of authority to grant or deny those licenses amounts to tacit approval of a religious custom, and is yet another example of the creeping bloat that eventually permeates all longstanding authorities.

in our lamentable march toward the truncated form of liberty we now suffer, our government has also endowed married couples with special privileges denied singles and non-married couples.   huge sections of existing tax code are intended to promote the financial well-being of families.   in the government's view, marriage is intended to promote nuclear families, and the financial incentives to marry supposedly create a stable societal environment, which in turn promotes society's longevity.   regardless of intent, the practice is wrong. marriage is a private matter between two people and their belief system(s), and civic considerations for individuals should not depend on their marital status.   government's refusal to grant polygamous marriage licenses to people is another example of religious-dogma-based moral posturing on the issue of marriage.

extending the scope of existing wrongs by expanding the class of people they pertain to is a step in the wrong direction.   government should abandon the practice of quantifying a person by marital status, just as it should not measure a person by their other religious practices or their race or gender.

another problem with bearing on this question is commonlaw marriage.   when two people of opposite genders co-habitate for long enough, in many states, regardless of any sexual relationship between them, common law can deem them married and they can be held to the same standards (i.e. child support/parental obligation and spousal support) as others who have actively sought licenses to marry.   sanctioning homosexual marriage poses problems determining matters of common law under conventional models.

i do not support a constitutional amendment banning marriage between homosexuals; i'm against any limitations of a person's rights, which should be inviolable to the point they begin to infringe upon another's person, property, or freedom of expression.   extending the Constitution of the United States to act as a barrier toward the free expression of peoples' personal belief systems is repugnant to me.

many homosexuals see marriage as a death blow to conventional moral norms; they actively promote what is essentially a lifestyle choice by any means necessary or convenient- and marriage is a huge step toward societal conventionalization of homosexual behavior.   clearly, many people (easily the majority) don't want this to happen in our society.   i don't personally view homosexual behavior as "wrong" or "bad" but i certainly don't believe it's "healthy" or "normal".   i'd be apalled if schools were forced to openly acknowledge homosexual couples as "normal" family units.   that tacit implication of "normality" would undermine parents' ability to teach their children otherwise.   i know from experience that discussing familial relationships with children is complicated enough, in a society in which broken marriages are commonplace.   fundamentally changing the nature of what is viewed as a familial unit is not in the best interest of children or the vast majority of parents in this society.

tolerance of others' behavior is one thing; embracing it is another.   governmental sanctioning of what a clear majority of the people feel is immoral conduct is an uphill battle to say the least.   while i don't believe government should do anything to hinder homosexual behavior, i also believe it shouldn't sanction it- it should be silent on the issue. the only equitable manner in which government can do this is to remain silent on the issue of marriage altogether.   rather than a step toward civil recognition of homosexual marriages, society should take steps to eliminate policy which acknowledges a person's marital status whatsoever.

that's my $.02 worth.