The U.S. government and people ought to slap down any thoughts of a constitutional amendment defining marriage and stopping gay marriage. We also should head off any movement to recognize gay marriage.
At the same time, gay special interests should stop seeking the so-called “right to marry” as one gay letter writer in Reason magazine recently suggested.
He asked why any gay libertarian would want the government involved in such a thing as marriage anyway. He’s absolutely right.
Not only should we forget about banning or condoning gay marriage, we should ban any and all recognition of marriage by the state in any form rather than make it a consitutional feature of our country.
Marriage is a solemn institution under the church, but it is not necessary for the state to regulate such an important feature of our culture.
The state regulates it now, but the state gives virtually no benefit to it except in the form of a marriage tax penalty. The state does nothing to help failing marriages. It provides no counseling services to the average couple facing divorce nor should it. Rather that is the realm of the church.
In fact, the state appears to have failed miserably in regulating marriage. Statistics in news stories often talk about a divorce rate of 50 percent or so. The civic institution of marriage is a terrible failure.
Consider marriage without the state for a moment. It would certainly be easier for people to get married. No license would be required.
Couples could just say they were married by whatever definition they preferred or they could seek the spiritual sanction of their churches.
No court would be involved in divorces except to adjudicate division of property and children. A privately written business contract could simplify these matters.
This may seem counterproductive, but couples can already slip in and out of marriage easily enough. It’s cheap as dirt to do either. Increasing divorce rates seem unlikely.
In fact, churches without the ruling of a state hanging over their heads would have an easier time not recognizing divorces as their doctrines dictate.
Marriage becomes a highly individual thing under such a proposal. It would exist for some. For others, it would not. Gays could say they were married, which they can do even now without the recognition of state. They can even get some churches to perform ceremonies for them. A heterosexual couple could declare their marriage or choose never to do so.
To have two “unbelievers” simply declare their marriage without oversight of at least the state may upset the sensibilities of many; but who cares? It’s not your life or mine.
On the flip side, churches and individuals could refuse to recognize such marriages on moral grounds rather than have the state, at some level, legitimize them. Churches would never be forced to accept a state recognition of gay marriage under this arrangement.
The question of benefits related directly to the spouse obviously arises. There are two kinds, public and private.
Private benefits, such as retirements and life insurance, are already handled privately and can continue to be negotiated between an employee and employer.
For public benefits, such as Sociable Insecurity, the government could develop a system for recognizing dependent beneficiaries, using something like the IRS’ head of household designation.
Those who might insist on some authority over marriage should ask themselves whom they would prefer to be the authority — the state or the church and personal belief.