Get Government Out of Marriage
As a possible
solution to the definition of marriage/gay marriage controversy, I propose to
get government out of marriage altogether. It is an opinion that can be agreed
upon by some of those on both sides of the argument. The legal purpose of
government being involved in marriage is so far distorted from the protections
originally intended that the purpose is obsolete. The numerous laws that would
be affected by the change are already being disputed and changed by the
original controversy. Domestic partnership and civil rights laws would still
provide the lawyers plenty of work and income. It would get rid of the
illusions implied by the legal marriage certificate and allow others, such as religious
leaders and those invested in helping innocent children and women, to come up
with solutions to help. It would preserve the sanctity of marriage and
religious freedoms as another separation of religion/state.
Why should there
be special privileges just because two people love each other and commit their
life to each other? A big part of the commitment in marriage is for the sake of
the children who might be born as part of that union. Optimal care for children
requires sacrifice from both the mother and the father. One of those sacrifices
could be the primary caretaker of the child becoming financially dependent on
the other parent in order to provide the time that child needs. To take that
risk requires trust and commitment. The legal marriage certificate has, in the
past, provided enforcement in default of that commitment of financial
obligation. Government was willing to back that up because investing in
children gave them more power. Children are no longer as important to the
strength of the governing forces, so government concern is only a moral
responsibility. The moral responsibility comes in a government by the people
and for the people.
One of the
arguments for keeping government involved in marriage is for tax breaks. Those tax breaks were one of the incentives
used to help protect the rights of the children that are cared for in a
marriage/family situation. So many children in our society today do not have
parents who are married. We need to restructure the tax breaks so they once
again connect with their primary intended purpose. As previously mentioned, it
takes a lot of time and financial sacrifices to care for children. The tax
breaks need to go to those who invest their time in that purpose. If it is an
extended period of time, then the tax breaks need to continue even after the
children are grown because of the lost career and financial opportunities.
Another disagreement
presented for keeping government in marriage is to preserve the sanctity of
marriage. Why should government have anything to do with the sanctity of
marriage? For me, my marriage covenants are very important and sacred, but that
comes from my religious beliefs and has nothing to do with the marriage
license. I used to assume that marriage meant the same to everyone else as it
does to me. I have come to understand that marriage means different things to
different people. The way we feel about marriage is more about our beliefs than
it is about any government sanctions. If we turn back to the constitution and
look at the original purpose of separation of church and state, then the way we
individually define marriage in our society today comes more under the category
of church than state. The legal
conflicts that appear more and more with our diverse opinions on marriage are
the very type of conflicts that having separation of church and state are meant
to prevent. Our current marriage
definition conflict is ultimately a debate between civil rights and religious
freedoms. Removing government from
marriage is a solution that could resolve those issues and would allow for that
diversity of opinion and preserve the sanctity of marriage.
I would propose
that one of the biggest detriments to changing the role of government in
marriage is all the laws it would impact.
Hundreds, if not thousands of laws might be affected. The impact on
those laws and how they might affect our religious freedoms is one of the major
debate points in the definition of marriage debate. Those laws currently are
being challenged in the courts. By introducing the alternative of getting
government out of marriage, in each one of those situations, it could help
retain our religious freedoms and also protect those civil rights. This would
be the time to tweak the laws to reflect the change that has come to our
society.
An additional
benefit that could come in getting government out of marriage would be in
getting rid of the illusion of financial protection that marriage certificate
now holds for many of us. Unless you have been through a divorce, someone close
to you has gone through a divorce, or you are involved in the system, you may
not realize the detriment that current divorce laws bring, especially to the women
and children involved. With no-fault divorce and the ease of getting a divorce,
the protections we once thought were there are no longer available. Getting rid
of the illusion that comes with the legal marriage certificate would encourage
many of those who could be helpful to children and their caretakers to find
viable solutions and stop some of the suffering.
Our society is
changing. We need to stop butting heads in an unresolvable conflict. Become
aware of the real issues. As the debate continues, step up and be a voice for
change with a real solution that could meet everyone’s needs. The change will
not be easy or quick. It will require many voices of reason to counteract the
emotional reactions of the masses. Here are some links that discuss and inform
on many of the things I only briefly addressed in this essay:
Posts
