Bans on gay marriage were passed in all 11 states that had them on the ballot last Tuesday. The closest margin of victory of the bans was in Oregon, where the ban passed with 57 percent of the vote.
Is this just another sign of America’s shift toward conservatism? I don’t think so. Two states that passed the ban, Michigan and Oregon, voted for Kerry. I think it’s a sign of the government’s continued encroachment on our right to make our own decisions.
The Republican Party was founded on the idea of limited government. That’s one of the things I liked about the GOP.
But nowadays the GOP is shifting its own values onto the American people in the guise of societal good. The Democrats now have an ally in pushing government on us.
The difference between the GOP and the Democrats is that the donkey party usually pushes for government involvement to make it easier for us to “pursue happiness.”
The GOP thinks they know exactly what encompasses that happiness and that we should be forced to comply “for our own good.” How have things become so out of whack? Have we just become exhausted from continually fending for ourselves?
Over a myriad of issues, the government is increasingly saying, “We know what’s best for you. So we’re going to pass a law making sure you do just that.”
Why, for instance, does the government care so much about me individually?
I am forced to wear a seatbelt and helmets even though my not doing so would not infringe on anybody else’s rights. If I’m not buckled up, is the road unsafe for other drivers? No. They just want to make sure I stay alive so I can continue to pay taxes.
And now, the all-knowing prognosticators in D.C. have passed laws like the Patriot Act that diminish our freedoms of speech and privacy in exchange for security and the “American Way of Life.”
They think their version of that life is the best and are trying their best to make sure we all get it.
Take this gay marriage thing. On one side, homosexuals want to have the right to be recognized in marriage, partly so they can receive government benefits and tax breaks given to heterosexual married couples. Most straight couples, Christian or not, are offended by the use of the term “marriage” to describe a gay relationship, and they believe it is reserved for a union between a man and a woman.
Let’s examine this issue a little more closely and see if we can’t figure out what the government should do (or not do).
First, why does the government give tax breaks to married couples? Could it be because those couples are expected to produce future Americans-future Americans who will eventually pay taxes, too? That seems reasonable. Married couples get tax breaks because they can breed (literally and figuratively) more taxpayers.
So, by that line of reasoning, gay couples should not be allowed to get tax breaks unless they, too, produce future tax payers.
OK, but what if a gay couple adopts a child or turns to a surrogate mother or uses artificial insemination? Well, then tax breaks and benefits would be in the hands of adoption agencies and sperm banks.
Eight of the 11 new state bans, and six other similar statutes recently passed in other states, also stated no recognition for civil unions. So, obviously, the government is telling citizens what exactly an acceptable family is.
Only a family comprised of two heterosexual parents is eligible for tax breaks. But what about single parents? Shouldn’t they get some help from City Hall?
Perhaps a compromise. Maybe the government should approve homosexual civil unions, choosing not to use the syntactically offensive term “marriage.” A civil union could be an officially recognized form of relationship but with certain stipulations.You only get government benefits if a child enters the equation through a state-approved adoption, legal insemination or surrogate process.
Of course, then the state would have to periodically check up on the new child to make sure he or she is being raised in a governmentally acceptable manner. You know, make sure they’re not being “gay-i-fied” or whatever.
Yearly reports could be filed as to the acceptability of the parenting and the progression of the child toward being an upstanding member of society. If the “raising” is not satisfactory, benefits would be taken away.
In fact, we could set up that same sort of check-up system for all families, gay or straight.
Or maybe the government should stay out of our lives.
Nick Thompson is a senior communication major. He can be reached at [email protected].