After the Supreme Court recently ruled that there is something unconstitutional
when two consenting adults are arrested for something that other consenting adults
are allowed to do under the law, Justice Antonin Scalia charged in his dissent
that the Supreme Court had signed on to the so-called “homosexual agenda,”
and that gay marriage could be on the horizon. Fearing that gay marriage
could lead to the legalization of prostitution, illegal drugs, and Saddam Hussein
receiving the Republican nomination for President next year, Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-TN) decided to take action by voicing his support for a constitutional
amendment limiting the scope of marriage exclusively to heterosexuals.
Why such a fuss to protect an institution that successfully works for heterosexuals
about as often as Los Angles Laker Center Shaquille O’Neal makes a free
throw? I have a better idea. Why not get the government out of the marriage business
altogether?
When one speaks of marriage, what do they mean? Is marriage a religious ceremony conducted by an ordained clergy? Or is it a civil ceremony that can be officiated by a magistrate or Elvis impersonators in Las Vegas? Sen. Frist recently defined marriage as a “sacrament.” My formal theological training suggest that anything conducted by an Elvis impersonator cannot be defined as a sacrament. Is Sen. Frist advocating that only ordained clergy officiate marriage ceremonies? Does he also want to limit the definition of clergy to Christian?
Those looking to the bible, as their point of reference would be hard pressed
today to find examples of marriage comparable to those that existed during the
days of the Old and New Testaments. For thousands of years marriage was a contract
by which men owned women as property. Usually, it was a contract between the men
and father of bride. Just as a man owned livestock, he could also own a wife.
The definition for such men was husbandman.
The dissolution of these marriages could result in a woman’s inability to
produce children within a certain time frame. Under this scenario, it was permissible
by law for the man to return the woman to her family.
Eventually, marriage evolved into a set aside program for the wealthy. Marriage became an institution of privilege reserved for people who had money, property and or a name to pass along. During this period neither the state nor the church saw a reason to marry the socially inconsequential. Clearly, marriage has gone through a metamorphous since its origin. Today, it neither is an institution based on procreation nor is it based on the amount of one’s assets. Marriage is the primary institution in our society for recognizing our most intimate, committed relationships. It is also the device our society uses to identify our partners for a range of rights and responsibilities, from retirement programs to hospital visitations. Should these be exclusive rights reserved only for heterosexuals?
The problem lies with the government’s inability to keep pace with society. Therefore, the government should remove itself from the marriage business. The government’s only interest in marriage is based on it being a taxable enterprise. Anyone who has gotten married in this country knows that the marriage is not official until the license has been returned and registered with the state in which the marriage occurred. Why not grant everyone a domestic partnership license that will provide the same rights and privileges that are currently exclusive to heterosexual couples?
The domestic partnership license would still be a taxable enterprise that would also get this country out of the quagmire that has it stuck in the Victorian era. Moreover, this will not prohibit anyone from conducting a marriage ceremony officiated by ordained clergy, civil magistrate, or Elvis impersonator. For those who would find a domestic partnership license a threat to so-called traditional values, what values are we trying to maintain, the approximate 50% divorce rate that currently exist among heterosexuals? How about equal protections under the law? Is that not a traditional value worth maintaining? By getting government out of the marriage business not only provides equal rights for all under the law, but it will also allow Elvis to keep his day job.