the new separate but equal

by Sandra Neish

Published: May 30, 2008

Why does the government concern itself with marriage? Historically speaking, the practice of regulating marriage dates back to the Middle Ages. However, for all intents and purposes, in the United States it began in the 1920s, when society decreed that interracial marriage was against the common interest. Well, as the song says, the times they are a-changin’ and just as surely as 20 is the new 15 and 50 is the new 25, gay marriage is the new interracial marriage.

Marriage, as it is being addressed here, is a contract between two consenting adults and is legally recognized by the state in which the marriage is performed as well as the other 49 (the rest of the planet will not be examined in this article). In each state, a license is issued to the two consenting adults in order for the “legal” marriage to occur. This is interesting and slightly problematic. What originated as a binding contract between two, is now a contract between three. Well, there are three parties to the contract, one of which is just there to ensure that a person is not married to two people at once or has some sort of venereal disease, et cetera.

Now, this is the interesting part. If, say, Jane marries John in the state of Alabama, but John is already married to a woman in Mississippi, does Alabama guarantee the marriage of John and Jane? No, Alabama will not issue a return on the marriage licensing fee, nor can Jane sue Alabama for not informing her of John’s status as a married man. So, what is the purpose of the state’s involvement? After all, few states still require blood tests, so the state’s involvement isn’t caused by rampant STD issues.

To answer that question it helps to look at other licenses issued by the state. Take driver’s licenses for example - a good call on the part of the state. Can you imagine how truly awful traffic would become should anyone and everyone be allowed access to a vehicle and the open road without some sort of test for basic competence? Though, I admit that certain drivers do seem to have obtained their license from the proverbial Cracker Jack box; yet, there would be complete and total chaos should the state cease to grant driver’s licenses and just let people hit the road willy-nilly. And so we have a logical situation where it is illegal to drive a car or other vehicle without a driver’s license. So does that make it illegal to marry without a license? After all, isn’t that the purpose of a license, to obtain permission to do something that would be illegal without a license?

At this point the state’s involvement begins to not make sense, because anyone can live with someone else or several someones else without the benefit of marriage or a marriage license. So, perhaps state involvement is supposed to keep people from having children out of wedlock? Nope, that can’t be right either. There is plenty of procreation going on without the benefit of even knowing the other person’s last name, much less marrying them. And if that were the case, half of Hollywood would be locked up for marriage license infractions. As a matter of fact, if we are so concerned about protecting the sanctity of marriage we should regulate television and movie stars, not homosexuals.

Back to the licensure issue; what other licenses are out there? Real estate licenses, engineering licenses, technical licenses and many other licenses too innumerable to list. Each of these licenses has one thing in common: it is illegal to perform the function for which the license is issued without said license. But the same cannot be said of marriage. Anybody and their brother and their Uncle Bud and cousin Sue can and do, do it - unlicensed.

So, what is all this brouhaha about gay marriage ? Is this the biggest problem we as Americans face today?

Some have offered a solution to the gay marriage issue: civil unions. Personally, I am in favor of calling all marriages civil unions for legal purposes. If a church chooses not to perform a gay marriage, that is the business of that church and its parishioners. That is the realm of the church. However, it is not the realm of the government to deny equal protection under the law because a group of people are up in arms over two people loving each other enough to commit their lives to one another.

This is the crux of the matter, in my opinion, equal protection under the law. Just as the society in the 1920s decided that white people should only marry other white people, society is deciding love once again. What’s next, gay and straight drinking fountains? I know, the parallel seems ludicrous. But regarding same-sex marriage, ludicrous behavior is commonplace. The religious right is furious over the gay-marriage issue, and demands a federal marriage amendment. So an attempt at compromise is made, by which marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples and same-sex marriages are termed “civil unions.” But no, they’re upset about civil unions. Fine, can we at least ensure that gay couples can gain access to each other’s health insurance? Nope. They’re upset about that, and on and on and on it goes, until the day someone stands up and says, “This is crazy.”

Well, I’m saying it. Enough is enough. This is crazy. The government needs to get out of marriage. There is nothing illegal about marriage or the lack of it. In fact, if two men or two women have a commitment ceremony and commence to living together, they aren’t going to jail. They aren’t even going to get a ticket or a fine. No one can legally stop them. If the act can’t be legally prohibited, then why is it so important to deny homosexual couples the same rights afforded to heterosexual couples? I say, let’s do away with licenses to get married altogether and start allowing people to file their marriages with the state after they are performed, only for the sake of good record keeping and to ensure that all legal rights and privileges are afforded to the couple. Really, what other reason is there for a marriage license?

—

(email this article or post to social network)

—