.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Same Sex Rights - A Separation of Church and State

The battle for same-sex rights is a major topic of discussion in some states. I'm still on the fence regarding same-sex benefits, yet I'd like to discuss certain freedoms and rights that need to provided to same-sex partners. This would include transfer of private property, designation as beneficiaries and guardians in the event of medical emergency or death. These rights should be an individual decision on how to control these matters. Individuals have the right to relationships with other individuals - even if they are same-sex. If I wanted to transfer my property or medical decision rights to another male or female, this is an individual decision. It should not be a State decision. A certificate of marriage should not be a criteria in transferring property rights or in the case of insurance - designating a beneficiary.

I respect the biblical and moral grounds of religion, yet resent the fact that churches work with states in trying to suppress personal rights and our personal affairs. As a firm believer in a separation of Church and State it the mission of churches to reach out to our hearts and minds. It is not the mission of churches to lobby the government for use of force in suppressing individual rights. A churches mission is most efficient in putting their money and efforts into helping those in need or in need of direction. The rights of individuals should not be part of a church mission nor the use of lobbying the government in an effort to suppress personal freedom.

Presently, our country has enough "issues" on our plate in regards to the economy, two wars and the transformation of our government. A truly free society would allow individuals to make their "own" decision on property rights and personal affairs. It should not involve the government or the mission of churches to squash these individual liberties. This is a misuse of control by our government and churches stands in the way of true freedom for all.


I'm not sure I understand your suggestion about insurance. I'm thinking insurance is something offered by an insurance business. As such, it seems to me that liberty (the normative framework in see in the rest of your post) would suggest public policy with respect to insurance should be to simply enforce the insurance contracts that are voluntarily agreed to by the insurance buyer and the insurance seller.

Perhaps the insurance issue is an issue because of prior government mandates with respect to requiring certain things of those in the insurance business?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?