Government - Federal,State and Local should get out of the
Marriage Business
My wife and I recently had a conversation about the coming constitutional amendment vote here in Minnesota to declare marriage as the union of only a male and a female. This is being proposed after the Republican dominated House and Senate of the state passed a bill that cannot, by our constitution, be vetoed by the Governor. The arguments for this include the threat such unions pose to traditional marriages and the admonitions in the bible against such unions. Homophobia is alive and well in Minnesota.
The bible argument is a bit strange. There are, to my understanding, biblical admonitions against bestiality. Definite proscriptions against same sex unions, I believe, are based on loose interpretations of allegory from the old Testament and St Paul in the New. Many interpretations of any part of the bible have confounded scholars (especially skeptics) for centuries and, I suppose, still do. Even if you are so faith endowed you believe in the inerrancy of the bible you should agree there are many ways to interpret much of the bible.
My biggest problem, however, with the biblical argument is there are many people, even here in Minnesota, for which the bible is not their religious touchstone. Besides devotees of Dawkins, Harris, and Sagan Minnesota has the largest population of Somalis in the country and the second largest (to California) of Mung for whom the bible is of little import. There is a Buddhist Temple in Minneapolis. The Wiccans are a secretive lot and I’m not sure of their numbers. The reader can name many more religions I’m sure.
Man and woman unions had the added salutary effect, as far as the churches and synagogues were concerned, of producing offspring to fill up the pews and church coffers. Kings, satraps, and head men every where were given more fodder for their armies as well. Besides it is good for control of the masses if they accept control in the intimate matter of long term relationships they will accept control in many other areas as well.
There have been threats to my marriage but never have I considered the cohabitation of members of the same sex a threat. We had a gay couple live directly across the street from us in St Louis and they were wonderful neighbors. Quiet, industrious, and kept their property in great repair and the landscaping was outstanding. They were friendly, polite, thoughtful and circumspect. I have gay relatives who have not come out and so they are circumspect about their preferences. My wife had/has many gay friends because of the fine arts degree she returned to college for. None of these associations ever caused the problems between us that raising four kids did.
This is not just a rant without a proposed solution. I look at marriage as a religious construct. It was probably proposed centuries ago by the same kind of priests Jesus threw out of the temple in the oft repeated story in the bible. The motive was not to limit the number of wives and maybe the untold part of the story was it was not even to limit who married who. Remember Solomon and his finagling and multiple wives. David and even Moses had multiple wives. A practice we now abhor and have done away with. We can do the same for people who through no fault of their own have a same sex orientation.
The major biblical admonition most often quoted against same sex union is by St. Paul an author that can, without stretching the imagination, be considered probably schizophrenic. The bolt of lightning that knocked him off his horse had the effect of causing him to hear voices longer than a simple concussion should. In any case the churches seemed to have latched onto this rite in all cultures and most religions. There were other benefits besides the initial monetary one. The money coming into the church just for the ceremony was probably enough.
Man/woman marriage also had the salutary effect of producing offspring that populated the pews of the churches and the armies of the kings.
When civil government decided to get into the marriage business is difficult to determine. It varies from country to country but started somewhere in the middle ages. Certainly it started much later than the religious certification of marriage.
Libertarians do not believe the state/government has any business in the marriage of a man and a woman. A libertarian view on same sex marriage is more difficult and I suspect more varied. Be that as it may, my view is the state has no business in the marriage controversy at all. This may be the only situation where I am in at least partial agreement with Libertarians.
The state/government based its involvement on controlling sexually transmitted diseases, eugenics, to protect the citizen from illegal/improper marriage, and to keep accurate records. It was also used to prevent whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Orientals, Indians and others in many states in the United States. The arguments now are effectively reduced to the biblical admonitions and the accurate records for issuing a license at all.
My opinion on this divisive and contrived political controversy is all government entities should stop issuing licenses to anyone. Religious sects should be free to marry whom ever they feel comfortably fits within their religious convictions. Gays, lesbians, and transgenders do fit into some orthodox religions it seems. If there are none local to all these groups they can form a congregation of their own if they wish.
The state can require couples to come forward after exchanging vows and register civilly as is done in some European countries. The couples signatures and social security numbers should identify the individuals for purposes of the state and federal governments. Surely this information can be transmitted securely to the IRS, Social Security, state and all other agencies that would require this to afford them the legal status of marriage without calling it anything except registering. The couple can call it marriage, bonding, union, partnering or anything else they want to.
This should protect divorce lawyers that will then be called to divvy up assets if the couples decide to part and decide if one should contribute the others cost of living. It should allow the couples to visit each other in the intensive care unit and make decisions about resuscitation. It should allow the remaining partner to collect the deceased partner’s estate, pension, and social security if appropriate. It should allow the couple to file joint tax returns no matter the construct of the union. There is nothing in the word marriage that is magical.
Those who want a big $25,000 church wedding and an even more expensive divorce can continue to do just that.
I want no part of peeking into anyone’s private life and I don’t think the government representing me should either.
No comments:
Post a Comment