Skip to main content

Thinking about what marriage is not. . . .

. . . and that's something the government should be able to regulate.

A scenario: a woman is married in the Catholic Church, abused by her spouse, and later seeks a civil divorce. She does not go through the church for an annulment. Later, she meets another man and is married to him by a Methodist minister.

Are they married? The Catholic Church, which does not recognize divorce and has not granted an annulment, would say, "No."

The State in which the Methodist minister performs the ceremony, however, says, "Yes." These two individuals are recognized by the State as legally joined in economic, social, and legal terms. They are collectively responsible for debts/taxes they incur. They own property together. They qualify automatically as next-of-kin in health-related situations. They are co-guardians of any children they have or adopt. They qualify for spousal benefits on health insurance.

The Catholic Church still says they aren't married--and in a religious sense, they may not be. But what they do have is a recognized civil union that the government and not the church can bestow and regulate.

Here's the truth that is so unpalatable for many American citizens: the government does not perform marriages; it only sanctions civil unions. Civil unions performed by clergy (or even justices of the peace) are usually called "marriages," but the irony is that it matters not whether a Priest, a Rabbi, or a Wiccan officiates as long as he/she possesses a government license to join people into civil unions--the advantages and disadvantages are the same.

Marriage is a traditional religious, cultural, and social term that governments have hijacked over the years to give a better smell to the civil unions it can create. All marriages in the USA are, in a legal sense, only civil unions.

So let's just get the government out of the marriage business, and admit that it only does civil unions.

And then let's get the hell out of the way of any two consenting adults who want to enter a civil union, whether they call it marriage or not.

Or any three, four, or seven consenting adults for that matter. I'm not precisely sure how your family arrangements--who sleeps with who, who does the dishes, and who wears what kind of underwear--are any of my business as long as you don't abuse your kids and don't mow your lawn before I get up on the weekends.

I would prefer a Constitutional Amendment to get this done; something like the following:

1. All legal references to "marriage" in law or policy shall henceforth and retroactively be considered equivalent to "civil union." The characterization of a civil union as a marriage shall be at the discretion of the parties involved.

2. No consenting adult shall be denied the right to enter a civil union with any other consenting adult on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.


Yeah, I know it's not that simple.

But it should be.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Great Article....Almost Harry Browne like....keep it up

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?