Privatize marriage
There was an interesting op-ed in the New York Times yesterday that neatly summarized a discussion that I frequently have with my wife. The column suggests that government should get out of the marriage business in the U.S.
The problem I see is that the institution of marriage was whored out to the government in exchange for inheritance protections and economic benefits. Certainly, the government set up rules, often unseemly by today’s standards, as to who could get married, but when the government started using marriage “as a way of distributing resources to dependents” it was entirely their domain. And that leads into the reason I am not opposed to same sex marriage, or even “plural” marriages between consenting adults. When an institution like marriage is run by the government then all Americans should be eligible for the benefit.
What would be preferable is for the government to get out of the marriage business. Allow private citizens to form legally binding “unions” – or whatever you want to call them – in order to establish inheritance rights and have proper legal grounds for other purposes. Let the churches handle marriage. That move would effectively defang all of the gay marriage controversy in the country. If the Southern Baptists don’t want to marry two gays that’s just fine. It is their right as a private organization to discriminate if they so desire. The two men, or women, in question can become Episcopals. Alternatively, they could choose to not get married, but formalize their relationship through a government approved union. Marriage, at least within your chosen religious denomination, is preserved as a sacred institution unsoiled by those you view as unclean.
What does your wife say about it?
I am so behind you on this one. People don’t understand when I am asked “are you for gay marriage?” The answer is I don’t care, but it seems to me that IF the government IS going to be involved in marriage then at least “gay unions” would fall under equal protection. To me they need to enforce what is constitutional or just get out of the institution all together.
Spoken like a true patriot, Brian.
Reactionary, I’ll see if I can coax her into responding tomorrow.
Wife here – Brian says we’ve had this conversation and I’ll be honest, I don’t remember it! Here’s my position: in general I think the government is annoying. They don’t listen to me, and they don’t do things the way I’d like them to be done.
Therefore, they are probably too involved in marriage if I had to sit and think about it (which once again to be honest I haven’t put much thought into the subject. I’m a tad busy usually). I have differing feelings on what constitutes marriage and who should be able to do what. Brian and I have had that conversation quite often – those I do in fact remember.
I guess my overall opinion is that the government needs to keep their noses to themselves in many more aspects than they do, marriage included. Now that being said, I also hold the opinion that gays should be allowed to get married and I tend to wonder if that will be allowed by too many churches. So therefore, I guess there needs to be another way proposed to allow money, benefits etc to be passed between people who share lives.
I’ll have to gently remind my lovely wife about the times we’ve discussed what marriage is and is not, who should and should not be allowed to wed, and what role the government should play! :)
It really derives from the more basic question, where is that line between church and state. Earlier political structures required the church and the state to be intertwined to enpower each system. Some of the inherent corruption led the US form of government to try to separate the two out. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Work out this question, “Is there a purely secular reason for marriage?” If so, then Western Style Democracy should be in the business of sanctioning it, if not, then it falls into the catagory of baptisms and baby dedications.