Just last Tuesday, I awoke to find that nearly half of my Facebook friends had changed their profile pictures to depict a red equal sign.
Representative of “marriage equality,” these signs depict a previously unforeseen majority of U.S. citizens who now favor this equality, and it has ultimately culminated with gay rights movement being debated by the U.S. Supreme Court
I’ve heard many people preach the mantra of “if you’re not pro-gay rights, you’re anti-equality."
Likewise, “if you’re pro-gay rights, you’re anti-God.”
But the equality dilemma is not a problem with merely two different outcomes and two different ideological opinions.
The Defense of Marriage Act is supported by proponents of keeping the definition and benefits of marriage the way it is currently, under federal law. Champions of this approach emphasize the unique roles of a man and woman in child-bearing and nurturing, as well as the beneficial role that the institution of marriage — as defined as a man and woman — plays in maintaining social order and the well-being of society as a whole.
Often dominated by aspects of religiosity, this ideological approach is almost always shuts off those with no religious affiliation and is consequently more difficult to maintain in a society where the separation of church and state is culturally prevalent.
Next, we have marriage equality proponents who seek the benefits that federally-licensed heterosexual couples receive for homosexual couples. They consider it unjust that the federal government differentiates between relationships and specifically sets apart the union of a man and a woman from a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Proponents of this approach do not see a fundamental difference between the loving relationship of a man and a woman and a loving relationship of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
But then we have another approach, one that gets drained out by the proponents of the aforementioned ideologies. This approach considers pro-gay marriage rights and anti-gay marriage activists to be fundamentally missing the point in regards to the marriage problem and the role of government in a nation state.
This approach demands that the government get out of marriage altogether, and this is the approach that young people should be taking.
Why should the federal government define marriage in any context, and where in the Constitution do the founding fathers give the federal government this inherent responsibility?
Marriage in a political context is nothing more than a sheet of paper that allows for fiscal benefits provided by the state.
To some, it has a deeper religious significance. After all, marriage was primarily a religious ceremony. To some, it carries with it a fundamental importance that supersedes any fiscal benefit in retribution from the state. To most, however, it’s merely a recognized unity that represents physical infatuation, emotional commitment and social status.
Society went wrong long ago when it willingly let government decide to specifically differentiate between marriage and other forms of human interaction, giving citizens federal benefits for participating in its contract at the expense of others.
If government got out of marriage, marriage equality would no longer become an issue. Equality would prevail on all levels.
The government would cease to promote one relationship over another and it would cease to financially discriminate against individuals who choose not to engage in the contract of marriage.
The role of the federal government in regards to marriage has been misinterpreted and perverted, and it has led America to being manipulated into posting Facebook pictures that represent the unconstitutional growth of the federal government.
Only when government ceases to fiscally differentiate between relationships can true equality abound for all citizens.
Reach the columnist at spmccaul@asu.edu or follow him on twitter at @sean_mccauley.
