Regulating marriage reaches too far for government

Opinion

Discussion

August 3, 2012

Regulating marriage reaches too far for government

By MATT CHRISTIAN Princeton Times The Zope Gazette Fri Aug 03, 2012, 05:00 AM EDT

PRINCETON — A few weeks ago, I swore off writing political commentary in this column. Quite simply, I had run out of things to talk about and I had the distinct feeling that my columns were starting to run together. I felt I appeared to be some kind of anti-government zealot that had no real solutions of my own.

So, I stopped writing about the political problems of the day. However, I've been overcome by the desire to comment on the matter involving one of my favorite restaurants, Chick-fil-A.

It seems a few weeks ago, the President of the company as much as said that he did not support gay marriage and that he was for traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

This provoked an immediate reaction on my Facebook page.

A gentleman wrote commentary that the Georgia restaurant chain supported “bigotry and hate.”

A female friend of mine said that that it was OK for people to go to eat at Chick-fil-A but she hoped people who ate there were suffocated by one of the bites of their chicken sandwich.

Individuals opposed to gay marriage or those that supported the right of the restaurant president to express his opinion, organized a protest to eat at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday.

I hate to disappoint either group in this debate but it's ultimately a moot point.

Marriage is ultimately a religious institution and should be left unto the churches, synagogues, mosques and other assorted places of worship to determine who is fit or unfit for a license.

The state should not be involved in this process at all. To regulate it violates one of the most sacred tenants of our government, the First Amendment to the Constitution. You know the one that prevents the establishment of a state religion or the interference in the people's religions.

This ultimately solves the gay marriage issue because the people inside of a or sect would be free to deem whether it's acceptable for gays and lesbians to get married in their group.

And those that were not in the group would be free to find another religious institution that was accepting of their lifestyle.

•••

I also feel obligated to address my Facebook friends' comments about the restaurant chain being discriminatory.

It's really stupid for a business to refuse to serve someone that wants the service. I don't care who you are, if you walk up to the counter at Chick-fil-A and order, you're getting the food that you wanted.

On the other side, Chick-fil-A should have the right to employ whomever they want or to not employ whomever they don't want. If it doesn't meet what the restaurant deems as the appropriate branding for their stores, they should not be forced to hire that person.

This view ultimately goes back to the view that the government does not have the right to tell private individuals to do anything or not to do anything. The government should merely act as the enforcer of private property rights and preventing immediate harm to people.

Chick-fil-A is ultimately the property of its owners and should be allowed to run their business as they see fit.

•••

Anyone that disagrees with what they believe the restaurant stands for is free to not eat there. Ultimately, this is how changes are made in the free market. If enough people stop coming to get their chicken at Chick-fil-A, then the company will have to change to meet the demands of their would-be customers.

It's only when the government gets involved that things get complicated. As the government has no free market mechanism to tell it what to do or not to do, it does not respond to market signals.

Thusly, the government makes odd and heavy-handed decisions that serve to benefit a few people like prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation but not allowing someone with a different sexual orientation to get a marriage license.

•••

This and many other things should tell us that government regulation is not the answer to our problems. The free market is. Thus, what I have been writing for a year.

Matt Christian is a reporter for the Princeton Times.

Text Only

Opinion

Search Results

Discussion

Regulating marriage reaches too far for government

Site Map

Contact Us