I wrote about the vote in Ireland and same sex marriage for my Sunday Thought today and how I don’t agree with it. I let a friend read it and the question was put to me, “Will they read all of it to see what your point is?”
Let’s see what the answer is.
What to write about today? I think I want to talk about what happened in Ireland and their recent vote.
I don’t agree with it.
But why?
Uh oh. People gonna make assumptions. I see it coming already.
If that were here in the US and there was to be a Constitutional Amendment about marriage, I would definitely be against it.
But again, why?
Because I don’t think marriage should be a government thing at all.
Just blew some peoples assumptions.
The government controlling marriage of any kind simply gives them money here and taxation rights and a say over our lives and what is right or wrong. Honestly, I would be going after the businesses instead of after a marriage amendment. Oh wait, the insurance companies are the ones that really make ‘marriage’ an issue.
They dictate who can receive benefits and that depends on who is considered married. You know, the insurance companies could make that simpler. And really, governments should have no say over who is married or not.
You see, if the US wanted to have a marriage amendment for marriage being just man to woman, I wouldn’t vote for it either.
Some say they wouldn’t be voting for gay marriage but for civil rights. I guess some would say it is their civil right to be against same sex marriage. Would a person then vote for that person to have that right without calling them homophobic?
Some people say marriage is based from religion, some say it is from some governmental thing way back when. All based on point of view.
There are a lot of things that the government gets involved in that I think they should stay out of. Then there are the things they should get involved in they seem to ignore totally.
Here in the US each state has the right to have the people vote on marriage. It’s down to the people in the area and not people of other states determining what people thousands of miles away will have to live by. Even then I would still vote against any kind of state amendment regarding any type of marriage.
I’m a Christian. Duh, right? Well, I mean most of you know that already. That means I don’t force anything I believe on anyone. I can tell you about it, but if you don’t like it, that’s fine. I don’t want to pass a law that says everyone has to believe in God as I know Him. Or pass a law that says everyone should use the same translation of the Bible I use. Sorry KJ people, but I need to study in modern English to understand at times.
Oh, and if you run across a person that claims they are a Christian and says you have to believe as they do, don’t take them as an example of a follower of Jesus. Jesus said, as I have mentioned here before, shake the dust of that town off your feet and move on. Meaning, they believe what they want to believe.
Do I have a different solution to the government control over marriage? Sort of, but I need to work on it a little. But even then the government would get involved somehow.
I hope you read this all the way through and see I’m not homophobic. I think I am governmentophobic.
Jesus said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. In many aspects of life that is how I look at things. Sorry, but I nor marriage is Caesar’s.
Oh, and if you noticed earlier I said. “If that were here in the US and there was to be a Constitutional Amendment about marriage, I would definitely be against it. “ I didn’t say same sex marriage, I said marriage. I wonder how many of you caught that.
© Copyright-All rights reserved by ronovanwrites.wordpress.com 2015
ronovanwrites 
All depends on your perspective, doesn’t it. If you see marriage as a legal contract then the governmental involvement becomes unavoidable. If you see it as a loving commitment between two people, then the piece of paper and its rules becomes redundant. If it is a vow between two hearts before their God then nothing the governments or any other body can do has any relevance at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In some countries I think you just go out in the open, profess your love, commit, and that’s it. World makes things so difficult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rules always do 🙂
I have been married in the eyes of the law… but the deepest relationships of my life have needed no legal ratification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, rat. A rat in the law. I get it. hahahahah. Yes, it’s 3 AM here and I’m doing Haiku reviews. So anything I say pretty much keep that in mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is an socio-economic rationale that underpins the legal institution of marriage…which is not quite relevant in developed countries either for property or protection. So I say, love is love, the rest can go…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess I disagree with the conclusion but I agree with a lot on the way there. And I must say upfront that you argue your point with both clarity and balance and without prejudice. I agree that marriage is really unnecessary and has been used by governments and big companies in controlling ways. And part of that stems from religious teachings (as we witness the Catholic Church in Ireland and its campaign for a no vote) and part of it taxation and what have you. I’d like marriage not to be there at all; I’m with you and Sue in the comments. But, in the same way as the old Irish joke of the man asking directions and the local saying ‘oh but you don’t want to start from here’, we can’t change the start point. We have marriage and currently its construct is discriminatory. It is limited it its scope. Because it is discriminatory in its set up then I see no other option but for the government to be the instrument of change. Ideally all buses, all schools would have been open to all people to use but they weren’t and brave people stood up and said we want to ride the same buses, go to the same schools and not be stopped because of a local rule that says we can’t. The government had to be the instrument who forced that change too. Personally like you I think marriage is irrelevant (despite being married 31 years) and, to me, is it not on the same scale as civil rights, but the fact is some people want to be able to say they are married – it is important to them – no doubt for all sorts of reasons. Given where we start from a yes vote in, in my view, is the only fair and compassionate response.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Looks like I might be doing a follow up to this article. I knew it would be a little controversial and even unpopular for some. But when have I ever shied away from those topics? I think some are not quite following my vein of thought. You did well though. 🙂 As usual. But not enough space to respond to everyone at length, so another article might follow.
Maybe old Ron is losing his touch with writing popular things but at least I do write honestly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have an entirely valid point of view and express it well (and honestly). We just end up concluding differently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Will they read all of it to see what your point is?”
Your position, as I understand it, is hands-off governance, or what could be called libertarianism. I suppose I can see why people might assume otherwise, although I don’t think such is fair. You’re male, pale skinned in appearance, from the South, and of Christian conviction. Assumption: “conservative Christian.”
People might assume that of me, too. As I mentioned to you before, I’m LDS/”Mormon”. I took several comprehensive political tests and found I held a mix of liberal and libertarian views. I live in southeastern Washington state, where a majority of views *do* lean conservative and Republican. But I tell people, “Dude, I’m from the Pacific Northwest– we’re pretty laid-back here!”
My main issue is a clear, firm separation between church and state. Alarm bells go off if I figure either one is telling the other what to do. About all I could say more was the thought of common law marriage, but just looking at a Wikipedia article tells me such isn’t internationally consistent.
(Apologies for a long comment. I trimmed it as short as I could.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ronovan: you’re missing the entire point, which is that governments in these countries are already in the marriage business, which makes the laws governing marriage that exclude some people from availing themselves of it and its legal benefits immoral, unethical, unfairly discriminatory and unnecessary. As long as governments govern marriage, we have to have change the laws to be inclusive of all who wish to marry who are legal adults. Period.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t think I’m missing the point. I understand the government is already involved, deeply involved, as parts of the article somewhat speaks about. What I am saying is the laws should be going after the source of the discrimination, the government and the businesses themselves. Enact laws that take away those rights of the government and businesses to discriminate.
Take away the “governments govern marriage”. People would say they can remember a time where they believed they would never see gay marriage being legal, well then people are likely to say they see marriage always being a government thing. No difference. It starts with a thought, an idea and that takes on a life and moves forward. Changing how things work is how to change how lives live.
Great response. 🙂 Thank you for reading through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The sequence is all wrong, that’s all. I don’t object to your line of thought, just to your ideas about the next steps in this process. Yes, discrimination is wrong: we agree. Yes, government should stay out of our relationships: we agree. BUT, since there IS discrimination and they WON’T stay out, we must enact laws that distribute fairness, in the meantime, while we work for the revolution.
Yes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think working to enact laws is the key, it’s the types of laws I think that is the thing to look at. But definite action needs to be taken. I am going to do a follow up to this article since I’ve had some lengthy responses, which is awesome because they have all been intelligent and nice comments. I enjoy intelligent conversations. Might be the former History Teacher in me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am old enough to remember when homosexuals said they were proud that they didn’t have to get married to prove their love and commitment. In like vein, heterosexuals in long-term common-law marriages used to point out the ease with which legally married men abandoned their families, and the rising divorce rate, to illustrate the meaninglessness of the piece of paper. But after the first high-profile “palimony” lawsuits happened, suddenly everyone demanded pre-nuptial agreements, insurance and welfare benefits, legal definitions, and constitutional amendments. In a world that celebrates Bridezilla and Gayzilla, what else can we expect?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very well thought through and written piece, my friend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic.
You want to keep the government out of marriage. Okay. So when you want to pass on your property (which is after all why marriage was invented in the first place) to the children you had with this woman who is not your wife because there is no marriage, how do you do it? Pay a lawyer to say who gets what?
So, I understand you are in favour of marriage but you don’t want to be taxed over it or pay lawyers to sort out quarrels about inheritance. Since you’re a Christian, you no doubt advocate no separation of Church and State, have a religious marriage and a marriage cert to take care of the problem.
But what if you’re an atheist? How do you get married? And if you don’t like the State meddling in your private life, I detest the idea of the Church meddling in mine.
Somebody has to ensure that widows, children, dependents are protected after the divorce, separation or death of the partners. That somebody has to be the State, unless you have a non-religious alternative.
As gay couples, the same problems arise for them. The same rights should be open to them too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I plan to do a follow up article to this one since there has been some lengthy responses. But I don’t think religion should interfere in any other persons life or in government. As far as the beginning of marriage, that depends on your point of view and starting point for the first marriage. As for the my being against separation of church and state, that would be an error. You see I think government and churches, since there are so many religions, really need to be separate to make things fair. Here in the US the government isn’t to pass laws that would put one religion over another, but in the same breath they can’t put one beneath another. Many times people being a movement to pass a law with the purpose of going against a religious belief or ideal. That’s their right to do so. But I’m more for a common sense approach which unfortunately doesn’t exist in government. Too many agendas involved. Nothing ever actually gets done that needs to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good Sunday Afternoon Ron,
As a Christian, like you, I do not even think of forcing my views on anyone. I believe ‘Live and Let Live’. I do not think the Irish vote on ‘same-sex’ marriage has anything to do with the governemnt, but it has to do with the PEOPLE exercising their democratic voice in allowing people to have equal rights. We will never change the world, only people band together can achieve that.
Have a great Memorial Day.
Best,
Mike
LikeLike