Government and marriage

There’s been a great deal of blather going around lately about the involvement of government at various levels in the certification of marriages. I’m fairly certain you have seen or heard or even been directly involved in the debate, so you’ll excuse me if I don’t go into identification and discussion of the issues present regarding the morality of same-sex marriage.

What brings me to the keyboard today is consideration of the role of government, regardless of the gay / not gay slant. There are two facts that lead me to conclude that the role of government in certification of marriages should be limited at best:

1)      The institution of marriage  in a form we would recognize today substantially pre-dates both our form of government and most extant religious traditions, so the supposition that our government (or your religion, for that matter) has any legitimate institutional claim on marriage is without foundation;

2)      In order for the government to claim a compelling interest in regulating the sanctioning of marriages, we would first have to agree on which form represents a true marriage. The vows which form the promissory basis of the practice are in no way consistent or even compatible from tradition to tradition in this diverse society.

I believe it is in the best interests of society to promote the well-being, rearing and education of children but that doesn’t come close to arguing in favor of a standardized marriage format. We’ve seen saints and monsters, geniuses and blithering idiots raised by couples, extended families, in-laws, single parents, adoptive parents – need I go on?

And by the way, for those who fear what might happen if we ‘allow’ gay folks to raise children, what makes you think that hasn’t always happened? And using celebrities as an example (solely so we’ll all understand what I mean here – I do not view celebrities as a special class deserving of special consideration; they’re simply well-known and thus convenient for the sake of this argument), who would you rather see raise a child – Bill Cosby or Jody Foster?

Some might say we need the institution if only so that we can encourage the family unit. What is the family unit? And how do we encourage it? By breaks on taxation you say? No sale to this customer – I am in favor of a flat tax with no exemptions whatsoever. Do the math and you’ll find that it won’t break gazillionaires and the poor will not be poorer. But that’s of course an argument for another day.

Seriously, folks, why should I care who chooses to live their life with whom, so long as there is no abuse or coercion and they don’t try to enlist me in their family life?

Plural marriage – okay by me. I don’t get it, but okay.

Gay marriage – what’s my compelling interest one way or the other? The only interest I see as legitimate – the establishment of a ‘nest’ for the protection and nurturing of children – has nothing at all to do with the sexual orientation of the parents, once the child is born.

Non-child producing marriages – Is it not always of benefit to society to have people engage in a long-term, mutually supportive, loving relationship? Please do tell me in what universe that could be a bad thing. And can you not think of a fun couple that would be incompetent or unwilling to raise their own children but are welcome participants in your own children’s lives? How about folks who can’t have children and can’t or choose not to elbow their way through the welter of officialdom to adopt – should we rescind their union?

Religious vows – You wanna marry someone you can’t prove exists, that’s okay with me. Wickedly silly to my mind, but what the hey.

I could go on. And on.  And on…  We (society) do have a compelling interest in the protection of children from their own ignorance and from the ministrations of predators. And that’s why ‘doe-eyed’ Mary Kay leTourneau should have spent her life behind bars. Any adult who abuses, neglects, or otherwise intentionally harms a child should earn the permanent censure of society, even if the child in question considered the abuse entertaining.

But other than criminal activity that would be simple to identify as such (bestiality, necrophilia, me wearing a Speedo come to mind), why should I care and under what derived authority should government at any level act in a regulatory manner? As I’ve said before, your right to swing your fist expires at the end of my nose. And my nose came through attendance at a gay friend’s wedding just fine, thank you very much.

AND NOW< FOR A SIDESTEP, SORT OF…

Incidentally, if you want to see a great example of an attempt at governmental overreach being exposed as simple religious bias-driven falderal, check out the video of Jason Chaffetz getting owned by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood. I’m actually not a fan of PP and don’t believe it should receive federal funding (not just PP but the thousands of budget line items I find not to be within the legitimate province of a federal government) but his attack was rude, his argument specious and his ‘evidence’ made up. Run the video and then tell me – is THIS the guy you want helping to make the rules regarding marriage?