Ravenwood - 06/23/03 09:30 AM
Andrew Sullivan makes a case for gay marriage in Time magazine.
We can live and let live. [...]I made a similar case back in March:We needn't all agree on the issue of homosexuality to believe that the government should treat every citizen alike. If that means living next door to someone of whom we disapprove, so be it. But disapproval needn't mean disrespect. And if the love of two people, committing themselves to each other exclusively for the rest of their lives, is not worthy of respect, then what is?
Now, marriage has been around for thousands of years, certainly longer than this nation has been around. The idea of any two persons being required to seek permission from legislators and citizens to enter into the age old practice of marriage is baffling. Even worse, couples hoping to marry are subjected to such nuisances as blood tests, age limits, taxes and fees.If there ever was an aspect of life, that the government has absolutely no business regulating, it is the institution of marriage. Marriages should be grounded in common law. If you vow to marry someone before God and/or a few not-so-drunk witnesses, that should be good enough for anyone. The idea that the state has veto power over the union is absurd. I have yet to be presented with a valid argument against gay marriage.The only reason I can come up with, aside from wanting tax revenue and control over people's lives, is that marriage licences offer some protection against polygamy, fraud, and dead beat spouses. In the day and age of divorce, I can see where having some up front paperwork might make things easier.
Still, the idea that legislators or citizens can prevent any couple who is of sound mind and body from entering into the bounds of marriage is disturbing. It's one thing to tax it, but to deny someone their fundamental right to take a spouse is wrong.
The government doesn't have veto authority over gay marriage; it has veto authority over the LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriage. Gays can go find any fly-by-night church they want and get 'married,' the government just doesn't see it that way.
I've yet to be presented with a valid argument in FAVOR of such legal recognition. If the government is to recognize marriage as a legal institution, it has to regulate it in some form or another. It has to make decisions and set limits. Maintaining the ancient standard that all marriages be heterosexual is part and parcel with marriage's legal recognition. Without tradition, it's all meaningless nonsense.
This is different, mind you, from the view that argues that the government shouldn't even recognize marriage; that it should be purely private. But the view that legal marriage should simply be expanded ad nauseum strikes me as wrong.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at June 23, 2003 9:52 PM'Why?' This should be obvious.
First of all, marriage has important things involved, like money, power of attorney, and children. As such, the government has to make decisions regarding these things. This is why there is alimony, child support, etc.
Secondly, marriage would be meaningless in the legal sense if the participants can make of it whatever they want. If I can marry a goat, or a two-year-old child, or my own father, and then craft the obligations involved however I choose, then legally marriage is meaningless.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at June 24, 2003 1:21 PMOwen, you don't need to be married to have power of attorney, or be tasked with paying child support. Also, alimony is extremely rare these days.
Marry a goat? Come off it. That is the same extreme gun grabbers take things too, when they talk about allowing people to own nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Ravenwood at June 24, 2003 2:39 PMHell, forty years ago people would have said 'Marry another guy? Come off it!' But by your own logic, the government shouldn't be able to set any limits on marriage as a legal institution at all, rendering it something less than an institution.
But marriage does, in fact, involve decisions for the government. It isn't necessarily for child support, power of attorney, etc, but it impacts these things. Then there are also community property states and the like. I don't even have to mention divorce proceedings...
If you don't want the government to recognize marriage, that's fine with me. It's certainly preferable to the government expanding the instution in response to every social movement that comes along. However, the legal recognition of marriage demands that it be regulated in many ways, as it is.
Posted by: Owen Courrèges at June 24, 2003 9:15 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
