Issue date: 2/13/10 Section: News and Opinion

From Sean Penn's controversial Oscar acceptance speech to California's Prop 8 to Carrie Prejean, gay marriage has proven to be a fickle and controversial issue with no clear solution in sight. The issue of same-sex marriage has not received the national discussion that such a vast and encompassing issue deserves. This is mostly due to our unspoken decision to allow the states to deal with the issue as they see fit. This is an intelligent and Constitutional way to approach the issue. Our Founding Fathers understood that social norms generally change unevenly across geographical areas; therefore it is better to allow a sovereign state to deal with issues that involve only its own citizens (Wisdom that the current administration would do well to heed with regard to healthcare…but I digress). Disregarding the short-lived marriage amendment, there has been no national action for or against gay marriage as a legal institution. This has led to short spurts of extremely polarizing and anger-filled dialogue that gets us absolutely nowhere.

Regardless of your personal views we can all agree this is a difficult conflict that we must try to reach some kind of workable solution for. In Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, and the District of Columbia same-sex marriage is already a legal institution. That means in every other state of the Union it is an il-legal institution. But what if marriage was not under the law at all? What if marriage depended entirely on the integrity and devotion of the two individuals who are taking the vows? This would take the government out of the picture entirely, putting the controversy in the hands of churches and other religious institutions recognizing the marriage. This means you will be able to choose to associate yourself only with the denomination, or individual church that shares your values. After all marriage predates any form of government and is certainly a question of theology, not one of legality. Currently, when a couple is married they receive a license of marriage from their state. This license represents the fact that each individual is obligated to any inheritance and social security benefits if a spouse dies and medical information if he or she falls ill. A certificate of marriage from a religious institution would take the place of any state marriage license if it were purely an institution of religion.

What are some of the implications of this idea? Does this mean that open marriages, polygamy, human-animal marriages, and group marriages will become the norm? It is difficult if not impossible to predict with any accuracy the social currents that will engulf America in 50 to 100 years. Even so, if the government were to be rendered unable to regulate marriage at all these are certainly possibilities. This statement must be accompanied with a reminder that regardless of what forces and currents shape our nation in the future they will be the responsibility of our citizens and not our government. Every social revolution that has altered our nation came from changes in the tendencies and mores embedded in the hearts of the people. Any social change begins when a group of people decides they want to live differently than is considered normal. African-Americans choosing to live in the same neighborhoods as whites, women choosing to get a job, and two men choosing to get married are all examples of social change brought about by voluntary action. If you truly believe that any of these changes are wrong and should not happen for whatever reason, it is your job to peacefully convince others that this is the case. You have the power to prevent these things from happening using non-violent means of persuasion. We should never allow force to be used to make others act in a way that we believe they should.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools