Marriage Matters

As mentioned before, I have no qualms about people living in committed relationships, whatever form that may take.  But the Gay Marriage debate is about gaining a change in law with which to bludgeon those who disagree.  Will it become bigotry for the Catholic Church to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples?  Probably.  Will there be lawsuits?  Certainly.  We have already seen religious hospitals stripped of conscience exemptions with regard to abortion thanks to Obamacare.  We’ve seen Catholic adoption centers close up shop rather than be required to place children with same sex couples.  It is pretty obvious how this will play out if the Supreme Court declares gay marriage to be a Constitutional right based on the Equal Protection clause (I suspect the men who wrote that amendment in the 1860s would be surprised that they had enshrined gay marriage into the Constitution).  This is all the more interesting since the federal government required the Mormons to outlaw polygamy in order to gain statehood.  If we say that any two people can marry – doing away with the state interest of procreation – then why not 3 people?  The basis for two in a marriage is because there are two sexes.  If both need not be represented, then why limit marriage to two people?  If love is the only prerequisite, then marriage becomes whatever any combination of loving people want to call it.  Again, that’s fine with me as long as these same people tolerate those who disagree.  But that’s not going to happen.  Failure to embrace gay marriage is already being painted as bigotry.

So, what should happen with the two cases: California’s Prop and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?  On Prop 8, the court should let the vote of the people stand.  The country is clearly moving in the direction of allowing same sex marriage (i.e. those who oppose it are old and those in favor are young, wait a few years and it will be approved by voters).  If the court allows it to be struck down, it is negating the voting rights of the people and taking us further down the path of juristocracy (why bother voting if the courts will just overturn it to their preferences?).  In any case, marriage is a state issue and the Feds have no place in it.  As for DOMA, the Feds have no say in marriage and it should be struck down.  The federal government needs to respect the Tenth Amendment, which says all rights not DELEGATED to the federal government are reserved for the state or the people.  Nowhere does the Constitution provide the feds with marriage law authority (I looked!).

Perhaps the best thing that state governments could do would be to repeal laws regarding marriage.  The purpose of marriage laws was to 1) encourage procreation to keep the population growing and 2) force men to support their wives and children.  Neither of these applies to same sex couples.  The laws are antiquated and often contradicted by other laws (e.g. the marriage penalty in tax law – you get more money back if you are just living together).  Women are more likely to be college educated than men, so they can take care of themselves a heck of a lot better than when these laws were first passed (this is doubtless part of the reason why we see an increase in single mothers).  If the states get out of the marriage business, everyone is free to do as they please.  Everyone can sign contracts and powers of attorney and such to deal with what marriage law did, thus making the law entirely disinterested in family composition but still providing law to enforce the ‘marriage’ contract.  That’s liberty!