People who know me well know that I have a rather Libertarian view on marriage: it shouldn’t exist as a government term. Simply put, if you want to have a religious ceremony with your partner, opposite or same sex, that is up to your particular religion and church. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony. If you want the government benefits of being tied to your partner, you apply for a civil union certificate. All people in this country who want to join with a partner should enter into a civil union. Senator Rand Paul agrees with me:

I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage. That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.

Senator Paul brings up a major issue that would need to be resolved if we get marriage out of government: taxes. But, there’s a simple solution to this problem and that is we replace the word marriage in the tax code with civil union.

The National Review article continues: “Across the board, Republicans need to be open to accepting new ideas, or at the very least, willing to listen to new voices.” Jennifer Rubin agrees with Senator Paul.

But what happens when a gay couple wants to get married? The First Amendment disallows the government requiring churches and religions to marry people who don’t have the same beliefs as the church. Is it still a battle wherein churches and religions need to be more open minded? Absolutely. But, giving all couples the same standing under the law with all receiving civil unions performed outside of religious institutions so that all couples receive the same benefits under the law is the only logical and reasonable step to take.

Marriage, under current law, is a contract between two people recognized by the government. Why is it such a big deal to make that contract available to any couple who wants it? It isn’t. As Senator Paul says, you don’t have to agree with my view points but at least grant me the respect to listen and consider alternative view points. Maybe, just maybe, someone on the right will see the logic and realize the world won’t be set on fire if all couples who want to enter into a contract are able to do so via civil union.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Bryan Driscoll

Bryan is the founder of 2 Rights Make a Left. While obtaining his J.D., Bryan researched and wrote extensively on Capital Punishment, an issue that remains close to his heart to this day. He has spent the majority of his adult life involved in politics in some form or another. Bryan spends most of his time reading, writing and discussing all things politics. Bryan loves to travel and, if he had his way, would constantly be jetting off to another destination. The rest of his time is spent following his beloved Bears, Bulls and Cubbies.

Latest posts by Bryan Driscoll (see all)

• Where is the Outrage from the Right? - February 19, 2017
• Eight Days - January 29, 2017
• Tomorrow - January 21, 2017