The Observer, March 21, 2008
Volume XL, Issue 21
Government should stay out of marriage
During the last presidential election season, there was a concerted effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This wasn't just an attempt to win elections; it was a reaction to judicial legislation. What President Bush was attempting to do was to take an issue from the courts and put it to the people. The constitution does not guarantee marriage, nor does it provide for same-sex marriage. The principle behind the amendment was first and foremost to keep unelected judges from interpreting a right that was not there. Whether or not you agree with the moral issues behind the amendment, having two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures decide the issue is far better than expanding language in our Constitution. Personally, I don't support this amendment, and whether or not government should allow same-sex marriage is not the most important issue. What is important is whether or not marriage should be a government institution in the first place.
At what point in our society did marriage transform from a personal contract between two people, to a path for government handouts? Marriage today is not about a lifelong commitment between two consenting adults, and it is not about cementing love or sharing a bond. There are few laws that restrict the ability for two people to share their love for each other. Marriage is now a way for two people to get tax breaks, insurance, and extra government benefits and handouts. If you are single, or want to be an individual instead of one half of a pair, you are punished. The law does not just discriminate against homosexual couples; it discriminates against all who are not married, including heterosexual common-law marriage couples. While liberals argue that it is an issue of equal rights and fairness, they really want more government intervention into marriage and greater opportunities for political pandering through tax incentives.
The real problem is not equal marital rights. It is the defining and regulating of marriage by government. To truly disentangle the religious institution or the personal institution from the government one, we must remove government from the process in the first place. Instead of capturing the definition of marriage from the right-wing government and giving it to the left-wing government, why not take it from government and have it be defined by the people or their local community? There should not be any amendment to a state or federal constitution defining marriage. Marriage should be defined by churches, communities, and individuals. Marriage is a contract between two people who promise to provide and care for each other for life. If you choose that definition to include a same-gendered union, then that is your choice.
This does not mean government has no role in the institution of marriage. The government, and in particular the court system, must act to enforce these contracts. In fact, this role is why marriage is able to exist in the first place. Without government, the promises made would serve no purpose. With such drastic divorce rates in this country, holding people more accountable to their vows might discourage knee-jerk weddings or poor decision making during marriage. As it stands today, however, the government encompasses a position far greater that marital arbiter.
The federalist system of governance was created so that concerns were on a tiered level. Those issues of foreign policy, defense, and trade required national decision-making, and thus the U.S. government was founded. Those powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government were left with the states or with the people. Whatever reasons one may give for making marriage a national or state issue, marriage is extremely personal. Just as Americans don't want government to come between them and their religion, it shouldn't come between them and their marriage.
