Ex-Gay Watch

I applaud the “everything but marriage” crowd and I don’t applaud them. I appreciate their honesty, but the issue of legal, secular marriage has nothing to do with what goes on in their churches.

Railed about this on Open Source Politics in commemoration of National Discriminate Against Gays week.

I agree. Why I agree is from this comment.

Here’s a piece of common ground between us: It should be allowable for any person to bind themselves legally to any person or persons for the betterment of others. The state should not care why people volutarily bind themselves. They should just care whether they have the mental capacity and that it was voluntary.

In addition to Steve’s examples, I would add another category. Shouldn’t you be allowed to bind oneself even if the other person has no sexual relationship with you of any kind? We already do this for adoption, but I see no reason to limit this to that.

When a state “recognizes” such things, it is neither approving or disapproving of the whys. For example, if I foolishly buy a car, the state still recognizes my contract with the dealer. Nevertheless, the state will still enforce my contract. It makes no commentary on whether the dealer is good or not.

The state’s compelling interest is to get people to think beyond their self-interest. An ego-centric country is not only not Christian, but also not governable. Thus, I disagree with my conservative Christian brethren on the so-called family amendment to the constitution. This will not strengthen society nor does the absence of it compel me to sin.

My agreement here still does not get me off the moral dilemma hook. All that it does is resolve the dilemma in the civil realm. This is why I still place myself in the MAFS camp even though I don’t support the so-called family amendment to the constitution.

Indeed.