Today many states, including Texas, have constitutional restrictions on, or definitions of, marriage as being between a man and a woman. Just as a half a century ago there were many restrictions or definitions of the differences between black people and white people; including restrictions on interracial marriage (thanks to marriage laws that showed up in the U.S.A. after the civil war). Many today use this and similar analogies to paint “marriage equality” as today’s civil rights issue, but just as with the racism issues of the past, simply allowing the law to be equal by repealing the “Jim Crow” laws is not considered sufficient to many activists. Instead the solutions being purposed only impose forced “equality” similar to, the racist by definition, Affirmative Action; as can be seen with the recent Danish ruling that hastraditional religious leaders deeply concerned about their rights to religious freedom.
If today’s activists cared about stopping government corruption as much as they do about “marriage equality”, governments would soon no longer be involved in marriage. The problem with government sanctioned marriage is not that it’s unequal, but that we have allowed the government to take away rights and freedoms from us all, and then say, “But if you pay a fee to get a license (I.E. a marriage license) we’ll give you back some of your freedoms.” This creates the illusion of inequality, when the real problem is tyranny. The best to this is to get governments out of marriage altogether, before more churches in more countries are forced by governments to do things they don’t believe in. Letting the churches and individuals decide what’s right for them – not the government – will result in a less confrontational solution then the current movement for “marriage equality” is creating.
Instead we could allow anyone who wants to be legally bound, to go to their private lawyer’s office – or fill out a form on legalzoom.com – to say they want to be civilly united with another person, based on mutually agreeable terms; up to and including the sharing of any part or all of their finances, medical decisions, etc.; regardless of the romantic or sexual nature of the relationship, which should be a moral and social issue, not a legal one.
For example, if my aging parents were relaying on me for financial support, I could have them civilly united to me so that I now have a legal justification to put them on my insurance; of course I’d likely pay a premium for this, but it would still be more affordable then paying out of pocket with today’s Medical Insurance scams; however, that’s a whole other topic.