“To each their own” That’s the beauty of what America once was … at least before all this “fair share” nonsense infected our national consciousness.

Now your “own” – assuming you even work – is increasingly not yours, flowing instead in increasing amounts to an increasingly dumb, increasingly needy, increasingly entitled (and increasingly large) segment of the population which is being incentivized to sit on its collective ass all day.

Meanwhile the six-figure salaries and benefit packages of those doing the massive welfare state doling ($1 trillion a year, at last count) keep getting bigger …

Anyway, against this backdrop we have the gay marriage debate – elevated this week by U.S. Sen. Rob Portman’s announcement of his son’s homosexuality (which has prompted him to drop his opposition to gay marriage).

“I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married,” Portman said.

Good for him … no politician should oppose gay marriage.

But here’s the thing: No politician should be rushing to sanction it, either. Or heterosexual marriage, for that matter.

Marriage – as we’ve noted ad nauseam in the past – ought to be the exclusive purview of local congregations. Gay or straight. In no instance should government (federal, state or local) ban congregations from marrying whomever they want … but similarly in no instance should government (federal, state or local) compel these congregations to marry couples against their will.

In other words, government should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

Now … as to the rights of homosexual couples under the law, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear on the subject of equal protection, which means any civil union authorized for heterosexual couples must (and should) also be offered to homosexual couples.

Gay couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. And no church which permits gay marriage should be prohibited from performing such ceremonies. But as the pro-liberty movement on behalf of homosexuals takes a major step forward with Portman’s announcement, we must recognize where “the line” is in this debate.

Forcing churches to marry homosexuals against their long-held theological beliefs isn’t an expansion of individual liberty … it is an imposition on religious liberty.

What do you think? Vote in our poll and post your thoughts in our comments section below …

[poll id=”583″]