Politicians and advocates, on both sides, have all had their about same-sex marriage in this election cycle. Now, they have moved on to the coming November referendum on the current administration. That battle is more economic; social issues, apart from Sandra Fluke‘s free birth control, have lost their moment in the campaign spotlight.
In the wake of the latest “debate”, there is a tattered and confused narrative regarding the bedrock institution of any society: marriage. Depending on whom you heed, either the nation is moving inexorably toward “legalizing” homosexual marriage, or 31 US states banning homosexual marriage, either by popular vote or by their legislatures (including California twice and, most recently North Carolina), tell a different story. Adding to the disparate narrative is the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, whereby Congress relieved each state from having to recognize marriages performed outside its borders.
There is adequate information, whether electoral, or legislative, even a presidential weigh-in, for anyone to adopt any position they wish on homosexual marriage and find assurance that their view is…reasonable.
So, while the political class hyperventilates over the coming election, now is an opportunity to make a clear statement about marriage in the US…before there is another Chick-fil-A moment. In the interest of full disclosure, my view of homosexual behavior does not deviate from what appears in the Holy Bible. However, my view on marriage will surprise many, even those who know me well. Here goes….
It should not concern the government, particularly the federal government, who marries whom. Further, and taking a libertarian stance, states should exit the business of licensing, and legislating either for or against marriage. In other words, marriage is God’s institution; it can, and should, rise or fall on its own merit.
Some will argue that government should promote marriage; plentiful and strong marriages benefit society. I agree that marriage benefits society, which helps governments. However, given the US divorce rate, while marriage benefits government, government support is not helping marriage. Indeed, it is hard to imagine why an institution that gave rise to the principles of government, and which existed when there was no formal government, should now need government to thrive, or even to continue. And it certainly does not need government to define it.
So what should government do about the state and nature of marriage? I recall Frederick Douglass’ response to what America should do with the Negro:
“I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”
Government involvement has indeed already played mischief with marriage. It created a preferred tax position – but why should one’s marital status impact the amount of taxes they pay? Do the unmarried work less hard for, or have less need of, their earnings?
Government has determined that a married person whose spouse dies should receive more in government payments, but couples in financial distress could only receive more government money if the man physically separates from his family and children. Giving a widowed person more government money for their loss, but withholding government help from married couples unless they live apart plays mischief with marriage.
That last one has done particular harm to the black community, pushing marriage rates lower and illegitimacy rates higher in the last half-century.
Now, government would seek to define marriage, to say what it is, whose union qualifies for governmental sanction, to say what schools teach about marriage? An effective government emulates both the structure and function of marriage and the family. How is it that government should presume to define, or re-define, what gave rise to it?
How much more mischief can government play with marriage?
America should remove government from marriage, letting it be an article of faith for those who choose to live that united life:
-
• Stop taxing people differently because of their marital status,
• Stop dictating who can enter a hospital room on that basis, and
• Abandon the divorce and family laws that give governments, via the courts, control over the assets and children of married couples. Make those who form relationships as an article of faith, keep that faith with regard to offspring and property, whether or not they choose to stay together.
Finally, regarding homosexual marriage, I neither sanction nor support it. Nevertheless, I do not oppose two people uniting their lives, and they can call that union whatever they like. Everyone knows what marriage is; taking the government out of the equation makes the issue a matter of conscience rather than one of politics, which is clearly what marriage has become.
Before the politicians get revved up again, perhaps we take this matter off the table. Eliminating government preferences mutes political arguments. Ending government endorsement heads off discussions of unfairness. Killing government efforts to define marriage puts everyone on notice that the issue is between them and the Almighty, as it should be.
He will have His way with all who seek to use, or misuse, His institution when all is said and done. Government should leave marriage alone.
Copyright 2012. blackmanthinkin.com
Not logged in