What about tax breaks for marriage? As one who favors simplified tax structures, with no favored treatment for any special interest groups, I have a hard time justifying any special deals on inheritance taxes or income taxes for anyone. Current income tax laws don't actually help most married couples much anyway, and sometimes even create a penalty. Inheritance laws are their own mess, and are unfair in many ways. Fix the inheritance laws, but don't use them as a justification for perpetuating the state's meddling in the institution of marriage.
Eliminating all marriage laws sounds incredibly radical. The government's regulation of marriage has come to be accepted as a law of nature - as real as the law of gravity — but why? Why polarize our nation over the government's definition of marriage when the state has no business being concerned about marriage in the first place? Imagine a new unfettered society in which the tradition of marriage is returned to its proper home, in the church, and in the hearts of those choosing to live as one.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I've actually been working on a similar article, but I was going to focus on something you seem to overlook, the importance of the law of contracts and how important it is that once government is out of the marriage business it still continues to uphold the legitimacy and enforcement of partnership contracts between individuals, including same-sex domestic partners. That's the vital flipside of getting the government out of the marriage business.
Dave
2 - Jonathan Lockwood Huie
Dave, You are 100% correct, and I do hope you will write about the "nuptial" contracts that would replace and become even more important than today's prenuptial contracts.
3 - geerussell
It seems to me that this is largely a matter of semantics.
From a religious perspective, I'm free to go to any church, or no church at all and conduct any private ceremony of my choosing and call it "marriage" with no interference from the government.
From a legal perspective, I can file the paperwork to invoke the legal construct also labeled "marriage" without involving religion in any fashion.
I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding how what you propose would differ from the current situation.
4 - Paul A'Barge
No. Separation of church and state does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean that Church stands on the side lines, marginalized and unable to participate in the American political transaction. It means that the state shall not pick one religion from the bunch and choose that religion as the official religion.
Authorization of marriage over long history, since long before America was established has been the responsibility of the civil government. There are good reasons for this. Marriage is a fundamental idiom of culture.
And, marriage is between a man and a woman.
So, here's the short answer to your piece:
No.
5 - Joanne Huspek
Hmm... Touchy subject. The term "marriage" denotes to me between a man and a woman in a civil or religious ceremony. The idea of a contract is implied, although maybe it should be more spelled out, especially for some people.
On the other hand, I can see how committed homosexuals may want to legalize their unions for the obvious reasons of having a successor spouse or for insurance. I have no problem with that as long as it's legal. Many do, but others I know are against gay marriage.
Perhaps the solution is to get rid of the term "marriage" and make everyone civilly unioned.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Y'know, I'm all for traditional marriage - been married for over seventeen years now. However, when it comes to the conservative maxim, "marriage must be between a man and a woman"...the requirements of that statement are obviously drawn from religion (and make no mistake, I am Christian). You see, I've come to question if that were truly God's intent.
Why? One, if there could be no same-sex marriages - and of course God makes no mistakes - then WHY are there natural-born hermaphrodites? WHY is there such a thing as ASD - Androgen Sensitivity Syndrome - wherein a woman who is feminine in every obvious way still has a set of functioning testicles within her body? WHY are there young children who, though far too young to have any concept of sex, cannot help but act as if of the opposite sex?
There's a chapter in Jeremiah wherein he laments the fact that there are scribes who have inserted their own beliefs into Scripture. Looking at that...and looking at the questions above...and bearing in mind that God makes no mistake...
...I must therefore conclude as a Christian that God would not forbid same-sex marriage, and that the anti-gay rhetoric of mainstream Christianity is not truly from the Bible, but rather from the social mores and traditions of the Hebrews.
7 - PhilWil
Wow...
I think logically the end conclusion is that government will end up calling all marriages "civil unions". Unless I am mistaken, this is what the blo author is trying to get at.
For me, clearly marriage is by definition between a man and a women and one of the major intentions is to create a naturally born child. Now that definition can change (as many words over time do) but since if everybody, including myself, is so overheated about the term marriage, maybe we should call it civil union for all.
8 - Christian Miller
Mr. Huie has the graceful solution to the gay "marriage" problem. A government "marriage" license is a hollow document that is only a voucher for big financial government benefits that are subsidized by single people. Legally a government "marriage" does not require love, commitment, children, living together or of the wonderful things we associate in our culture with "marriage". Stop the government subsidies and much of problem goes away.