Bruce MacMahon for State Representative
Rockingham District 10 - Brentwood
|
|
|
Help
me work to keep New Hampshire prosperous and free by bringing back common
sense ideas and solutions that work in the best interest of The People. |
Marriage Equality (click here to return to the Home Page)
As is the case with so
many of the issues facing the voters of New Hampshire today, my position on
the hotly debated topic of same-sex marriage comes from my application of
basic, common sense principles of responsible and representative government –
the first and foremost among them being the Constitutional limits placed on
the authority of government. Ronald Reagan once said,
“Man is not free unless government is limited.” Henry
David Thoreau, paraphrasing our country’s Founding Fathers, wrote, “That government is best which governs least.” I agree wholeheartedly.
Along those lines, with respect to same sex marriage, I ask the following
question. “Is an individual’s decision to get married any of the government’s
business? Does it merit intrusive governmental regulation or restriction?” My answer to both
questions is a resounding “No!” The lack of common sense
and the inconsistent arguments being put forth by partisans on both sides of
the ideological divide in this discussion defy logic and continue to be a
source of irritation to me to this day. On one hand, we have a
group of people arguing that the government is over-stepping its bounds when
it attempts to dictate who can and can’t get married, and that the more
“proper” role of government is to enact laws dictating such things as what
kind of light bulbs or health insurance policies we should be forced to buy,
what kind of car we can be allowed to drive, or how high we should be
permitted to set the thermostats in our homes. On the other side of the
fence, we get the equally illogical and inconsistent argument calling for
less government intrusion into our personal lives, as it pertains to health
care, gun ownership, tobacco use, and dietary choices (to list but a few),
while at the same time demanding that the government be actively involved in
regulating our choice of spouse and other intimate and personal
relationships. The next question I’m
compelled to ask is, “What is the difference between civil marriage, as
defined by the State for the purposes of spousal rights and arbitrarily
configured tax benefits, and Holy Matrimony as defined by the religious
and/or spiritual institution of one’s choosing?” Some will argue that
there is no appreciable distinction between the two, and that all marriage is
sacred. They will put forth the argument that allowing same-sex couples to
marry will devalue marriage for all and impugn the “sanctity” of marriage
between a man and a woman. Sanctity of marriage
exists only in the eyes of the church. A couple entering into Holy Matrimony
is essentially forming a covenant between themselves and their God. It is a
sacred and deeply personal bond – one that must be respected and left alone
by every level of government, from town hall to Capitol Hill. Like it or not, there is
nothing “sacred” about civil marriage, as defined, licensed, and regulated by
the State. The government does not require marriage license applicants to
pledge their love to one another, nor their fidelity, their devotion to God,
their intent to bear children, or even their present or future plans to
cohabitate. Just about the only
thing “sacred” about the concept of two people getting married, as far as the
State of New Hampshire is concerned, is the $45 marriage license fee. The distinction, again,
should be between "civil marriage" and "holy matrimony". Likewise, at the other
end of the spectrum, if a church takes the stand that the concept of same-sex
marriage goes against their core tenets and teachings, it should be entirely
acceptable in the eyes of the law for that church to refuse to perform the
rite of holy matrimony for same-sex couples. I was happy to see the
residents of Brentwood stand together and defeat, overwhelmingly, an article presented
at this year’s town meeting that would have held a person’s right to enter
into the contract of civil marriage subject to majority rule. I doubt anyone
would like to see our rights to speak freely, practice religion, or educate
our children relegated in a similar fashion.
With the growing
popularity of the grassroots Tea Party movement, we’re hearing a lot of talk
about getting the government to once again recognize and respect of the
rights and liberty of the individual, as our Founding Fathers intended. But,
to be an advocate for individual liberty is to stand up in defense of liberty
for all individuals, not just those whose behavioral standards coincide with
your own. As your state
representative, I will fight any attempt to enact legislation that seeks to
paint with a broad brush a narrow set of moral values on the People. I’d no
sooner legislate good eating habits than legislate one’s choice of spouse. Whether we’re talking
about a person’s right to get married, smoke a cigarette, carry a handgun, or
eat a sugary, trans fat-laden doughnut for breakfast, I will stand up for
equal rights for all New Hampshire residents. Those who seek to impose
equality on some, while depriving others of the same – discrimination in the
name of partisan political ideology - will gain no favor in my sight. ~ Bruce |
|
|
|
