I Do. Or Do I?

In the interest of full disclosure, I will start by telling you that I am not a fan of even the traditional definition of marriage. Individuals smarter than me could no doubt analyze the experiences that have defined me and come up with a handful of explanations for why that might be. What I know is that it just stopped making sense to me somewhere around the time I started questioning the intelligence of a lot of things I had once accepted with implicit faith.

That said, I also don't begrudge any individual who does find this a sensible and necessary way to express their love and commitment to another person who is also of consenting age. Perhaps it is once again due to my own life experiences, but the caveat here is that I do mean any adult--regardless of age, race, gender, physical mutations, etc--being able to make that commitment to any other adult--regardless of their own age, race, gender or physical mutations.

We explored one aspect of the First Amendment in our last Civil Liberties post, but let's focus on a specific sentence with this blog--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The preceding sentence is what mandates that our government exercise separation of church and state. It doesn't just mean that no law can be made about what religion a person must be, but that no legislation can be enacted that makes a religious principle law. No law saying that we must all go to church on Christmas, that all women must wear a hijab or that every insect be left in peace out of the Buddhists' respect for all living things. Which means that--while I am not anymore inclined to marry someone from my own gender than I am to marry someone from the opposite--our constitution says that my own preferences in this area should be moot when it comes to making laws my peers and I must abide by.

Marriage is a religious institution, let's be clear. If it was anything different, it would be the same regardless of country or religion or century. It is not. Our government recognizes marriage in a legal sense in order to determine how to apply taxes, manage spouses' legal rights and protections, and because it will be called upon to divide assets and determine child custody when any union falls apart (as they often seem to).

That said, let's take sexual preference out of it for a minute (the sticking point for many who oppose anything but traditional marriage) and throw a hypothetical situation out for consideration...

Let's say my (female) best friend and I were both happily married since our late-twenties to two wonderful men, who were also very good friends with each other. In our mid-forties, on the way back from a guys' weekend skiing or golfing or whatever, our husbands are both tragically killed in an accident. Between the two of us, we are left with four children, two mortgages and a lot of uncertainty about our futures. My parents have already passed away and hers aren't in any condition to take care of themselves, much less help her or make decisions on her behalf if something happens to her. We have siblings, but our siblings aren't involved in our day-to-day lives because they have their own families and their own concerns.

All we have is each other. My house has room for all of us and I can continue to pay the mortgage; she has health insurance, where mine was through my husband. If something happens to me and I can't communicate my wishes, she is now the first person I would want the hospital to consult about what my wishes would be; and vice versa. In the event either of us finds a fate similar to our husbands, we would want the other to have custody of our children and access to any of our financial assets in order to ease any burden related to that, without any challenge or hassle. Maybe that will change one day, but for now we are more concerned with protecting ourselves and being able to finish raising our teenage children than we are with dating, finding new husbands or trying to start new lives.

On a purely legal level, that's what marriage is and that's what my best friend and I should be able to do if we decide--as rational adults--that it's a commitment we want to make to each other. The law concerns itself with committing to another person not on a spiritual level, but in all the tangible ways that it can influence--specifically when it comes to medical or financial decisions. Protecting the legal rights inherent to sharing a life with another human being is why it treaded into the murky gray area of not-completely-separate-church-and-state to begin with.

I may not believe in marriage for myself, but even if I did I still would be hard-pressed to find issue with any responsible consenting adult--for whatever reason they might have, which (IMO) isn't any of my business anyway--making a commitment to another consenting adult or group of consenting adults. If all these people want is to live prolific lives where they are able to be focused stewards of themselves and their children, then why should I or the American government take issue with that? As we watch so many traditional marriages dissolving into the hate-filled opposite of that, does anyone touting traditional marriage as "the right way to have a family" really have any imaginary moral authority left to stand on?

Many states--my own included, I am disappointed to say--have amended their constitutions "in hindsight" to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. These changes are illegal. Amendments or laws of that nature are in direct violation of the First Amendment, because the definition of a man and a woman is something being driven by a religious propaganda machine that our government is supposed to remain impervious to. 

I believe this goes back to the previous civil liberties post where we, as Americans, sometimes fall into the trap of making laws against things we don't personally agree with or understand--without consideration of what our constitution does or doesn't permit us the power to do (and for what good reasons that might be). On a purely legal level, can you find basis for any law that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman? 

Comments

[Kelly Brooks]

I am totally opposed to the government getting any more involved in our lives than it has to. I mean who cares how ppl want to live at home as long as they aren't hurting anyone and they aren't living off the rest of us?

[Brandon M.]

Alot of times most of us live in a way that doesn't leave our government any choice but to become involved... but this isn't one of those situations.

[Rick]

Well, I think it's wrong. Only a man and a woman should be in a relationship. That's not just how my church says it should be, that's also how it is in nature.

[Kelly Brooks]

What about nature? These two male penguins seem to be doing a better job than the egg's biological parents... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/05/gay-penguins-adopt005.html

[Jeff T]

Kelly's right. There has been ample evidence of animals who prefer the companionship of their own gender to the opposite. The only thing nature says is that such a situation can't produce offspring... but perhaps in our overpopulated world, that isn't such a motivating factor as it once was.

[Mark A]

Love the comic strip!

[anonymous]

I agree, in your example, that the two women should be able to make the choice to give each other those legal rights... but why do they have to get married to do that? Can't they get a lawyer to draft some documents granting them those rights?

[Mary M]

Gay couples who get married can't have kids and the Bible says that you should only be in that kind of relationship for the purpose of having children.

[Jeff T]

WaiT. I'm confused. So now we should create a law that says marriage is about having kids?

[Stacey]

Which kind of relationship? I don't think God, anymore than the US government, has a problem with people committing themselves to other people in an attempt to provide themselves whatever peace of mind they need.

[Josh K]

He certainly probably would prefer it over the rest of us who are just sleeping around...

[Natalee S]

@Josh K. LoL! omg...

[anonymous]

I think anyone who thinks it's okay to allow same-sex couples to marry is stupid.

[Nick Lewis]

> agree, in your example, that the two women
> should be able to make the choice to give each
> other those legal rights... but why do they
> have to get married to do that? Can't they get
> a lawyer to draft some documents granting them
> those rights?

It is possible to grant any person those legal rights if you have the money for a lawyer or the legal savvy to fill out the documents yourself. It's certainly doesn't eliminate all the hassle. And, in the case of the health insurance mentioned in the example, there isn't a lawyer alive that can draft a legal document to force a health insurance company to cover another adult and their dependents UNLESS there is a marriage involved.

[Natalee S]

I think people who leave anonymous comments calling people names are stupid. Not everyone out here agrees, but we should be able to have a discussion without resorting to childish antics.

[Rick]

It's not only childish, it doesn't do anything to help anyone's case.

[Juli]

@anonymous: Why don't you try telling us why you are so opposed to the idea and on what grounds our government should make a law prohibiting it?

[Anthony Patrick]

I would prefer the marriage only be between a man and a woman as well... but I think the point of this blog isn't trying to decide what is morally right, but asking ourselves if it is wise to grant our government the moral authority to make these types of decisions.

Maybe this time we agree, but what if next time we don't? Is it wise to set this sort of precedent?

[Matt Z]

Here's a great article I thght you might all appreciate. It is focused on the tense discussion around health care, but has several great points... http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/03/ruiz.closed.minds/index.html