The Way It Ought To Be

I don't know about you, but I'm growing mightily weary of all this intractable debate about "gay marriage". No one agrees on terms, or premises, or anything else -- but what is most fatiguing is that everyone, without exception, totally misses the point, which is: What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway? If you go back not all that far in our history you discover that this thing called "marriage" was, for Roman Catholics, a sacrament, and for everyone else at least a highly significant event, usually with religious overtones -- a rite of passage that had the full cultural, moral, and social support of, and was duly validated by, the church, the community, and the racial/ethnic groups to which the two parties belonged. Go back farther than that (or to the "third world" of today) and you'll find that marriage is the community's way of formalizing, validating, and assenting to a long-term, stable relationship which is assumed to have, as one of its primary purposes, the bearing and raising of children. I mean, let's face it -- if human beings did not come in two basic models (male and female, for those of you in Rio Linda), and if some sort of relationship between those two basic models was not required in order to reproduce, marriage would never have been invented. We would still have friendship, and various forms of at least emotional intimacy, and various domestic living arrangements, but we would not have marriage; it's as simple as that. But the same people who cooked up "penumbras" to justify legalizing abortion would undoubtedly be willing to assent to any degree of "mission creep" when it comes to marriage -- and that is the source of much of the confusion we see today, and of the futility of the discussions on the matter.

When did government jump into the marriage game anyway, and why? Well, of course marriage has always had legal ramifications where property (ownership, inheritance, etc.) is concerned. One could almost see it as a feature of Natural Law that a relationship which is formalized in the interests of family stability should also have implications for property rights... except that communists don't see it that way, nor do many socialists. And the IRS is getting quite shaky on the matter as well -- they can't tell whether marriage should be economically punished, or economically rewarded... so they do both at once. So aside from the assent of the community to bear and raise children, all other implications of marriage have been, and continue to be, a matter of local custom, but also of government policy, which may or not reflect the actual values of the society and the members thereof. For instance, the right to inherit money and property from one's parents is taken for granted by anyone who stands to gain from it... like a member of the Kennedy "clan", for instance... but it is not at all taken for granted by people who would rather confiscate those resources for their own purposes, e.g. to fund a government "program". And when it comes to all the _other_ "rights" that have come to be associated with marriage, those may be even more debatable, from the purely "social policy" point of view. So the collectivists among us have come to see marriage not as a noble institution which plays a vital role in the perpetuation of the race, but as a kind of cash cow and a means through which they can exert more and more power -- and this is the source, as much as any, of the current confusion.

On the contrary, I don't think there is one "right" associated with marriage that could not just as readily be claimed, and validated, and documented, independently of marriage, saving the most basic, namely the right to bear and raise one's own children without interference or harrassment from the government (which, by the way, is the one right that the "gay marriage" advocates don't care to discuss, since they come down on the collectivist side of most arguments). You want to talk about insurance benefits? Find an insurance company that offers the plan you want. Medical decision-making rights? Find the hospital that offers the plan you want. Property rights? Draw up a contract, sign it, get it notarized. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. Now of course, there is one aspect of all this that no one wants to mention out loud, and that is that marriage is, traditionally, also a way in which the community formalizes their permission for two people to, um... how can I put this? ... have sex. Aye, there's the rub (if that is the word)! You don't suppose.... well, I'm sure this is way too far-fetched, but... you don't suppose that one of the major things driving the "gay marriage" agenda is the desire to co-opt the community into explicitly permitting the people in question to have sex? (I mean, how could sodomy laws coexist with gay marriage? I'll bet Texas could work out a way.) You don't think there might be just the slightest particle of residual guilt about this issue, which the individuals are seeking to expiate? Well... just a passing thought.

So what we have is a situation where people want what they want because the government won't let them have it any other way. But _why_ won't the government let them have it any other way? This is a question no one wants to ask. In any case, here's my proposal. Let every church, synagogue, mosque, meeting place, stone circle, hippie colony, you name it, define "marriage" any way they please, according to their own beliefs, doctrines, customs, and the needs of their adherents. Let them perform marriage, bonding, "friendship", you name it, ceremonies any way they like -- for "time and all eternity" or for one week at a time. Let the people call themselves whatever they like -- husband and wife, guy and guy, gal and gal, man and dog, woman and snake, you name it. But keep the government out of it -- entirely, completely, totally.

But! If people insist on the government (on any level) providing some sort of contractual services, or a "package" of some sort, let it come up with a form of partnership, just like a business. It could involve, or not involve, any "rights" of interest to the persons involved, like joint accounts, property ownership, inheritance, medical decisions... not child custody -- that would be an entirely different section of law. But take care of all this other stuff that is constantly being brought up to obfuscate the issue. And -- oh, by the way -- this sort of contract or package -- "domestic partnership", whatever -- could be drawn up between any two adults. Read that again. "Any two adults." That means, a man and a woman. Or two men. Or two women. Or a guy and his uncle. Or a woman and her child. Yes! Open wide the doors of liberty! Why shouldn't any two people be allowed to enter into contracts of this sort? But do you hear this possibility ever broached by people on either side of the issue? No. Not ever.

Now, I would expect, if this system were put into place, that many couples (of whatever persuasion) who got "married" or otherwise bonded in a church, synagogue, coffee house, yurt, wherever, would also wind up setting up a legal domestic partnership. But some wouldn't. Similarly, some people who set up a domestic partnership would have absolutely no interest in any sort of liturgy or ceremony -- it would be strictly business, thank you very much.

So that's my plan. I invite your comments. Will it ever come to pass? Of course not -- there are too many vested interests (political, economic, emotional, social) against it. Would it work? Absolutely. Would it make this a freer country? Absolutely -- which is why it will never be allowed to happen. The arguments will drone on... all the agendas will remain hidden... resentments and misunderstandings will proliferate... and we will become less free, and more alienated, with each passing day.