Dan Sherrier

The typical conservative feels that marriage must remain between a man and a woman, and the typical liberal feels that it would be the end of civil rights as we know it if gays were never allowed to marry.

But the question that bugs me is…Why does anyone need legal permission to marry?

Do it your way.

To find out precisely what sort of person can and cannot marry in each state, go to USMarriageLaws.com. There, see how government is clearly overstepping its bounds into a personal matter.

The marriage issue is one that should fall under “freedom of religion,” something that should be decided by individual church denominations or secular people.

For many, marriage does have a religious component, as the commitment is made before God in a church. To a Roman Catholic, for example, marriage is one the Seven Sacraments, sharing a list with baptism and confirmation, among other life events.

For more secular people, marriage can simply be a life-long commitment between two adults made in front of family and friends, followed by a huge party.

In any case, it’s a private, personal commitment made between two people. While, true, a marriage doesn’t exist in a vacuum, no one is affected more profoundly than the couple (and their children, if kids are already in the picture.) What the couple does behind closed doors in their private dwelling–and with whom individuals choose to share a private dwelling–should be of no concern to the general public.

And, yes, today there is nothing to stop a gay couple from behaving exactly like a married couple. The only difference is the legal recognition and the accompanying laws. But no one can legislate love.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not mean anyone is bigoted. Some people just want to preserve their traditions. For the small minority that actually is bigoted, the legal recognition of gay marriage would change little.

It would be inappropriate for the government to make any declaration as to whether Christian rituals or Jewish rituals are the proper way to go. Similarly, the government should have no say as to what marriage rituals are proper. We can all have our private opinions as to whether gay marriage is moral or not, and we can express those, but we shouldn’t stop gays from marrying. It would also be wrong for the government to mandate that a church facilitate gay marriages if that church’s religion does not feel gay marriage is proper.

Much of the gay marriage debate seems to revolve around the question of how we define marriage. That may be an important personal question as an individual determines how he or she wants to proceed with life, but it’s not a public policy question.

A spiritual thriller by Dan Calabrese. Click the image learn more and to order a copy.

In a way, the two sides of this debate are trying to impose their respective definitions of marriage on the whole country. Whether a person is saying marriage must remain between a man and a woman, or that a marriage must simply be between two individuals regardless of gender, that person is telling everyone else what a marriage must be. They’re doing so with the best of intentions, but they’re doing so nevertheless.

I don’t have a perfect solution, but here’s my suggestion for a compromise:

Let’s repeal every law that pertains to marriage. Then, the law will recognize no one’s marriage–gay, straight, or polygamist.

People can still marry, but they do so in whatever manner they see fit. There are no marriage licenses, no effect on an individual’s taxes, no automatic ownership of each other’s property–nothing of that sort.

Two spouses can still voluntarily share any property they want to share, just as any two individuals can own the same home, enter into the same lease, or share a business. They can bequeath whatever they like to each other in their respective wills. One of them can go through a change of last name, if desired. They can commit to each other for the rest of their lives and honor that commitment, simply because they want to do so.

Basically, they can still live exactly like a married couple, and they can call themselves a married couple, and their friends and family can regard them as a married couple, same as before. But the law has nothing to do with any of it.

The law’s only automatic presence would be with regard to child custody issues, such as if negligence is occurring or simply to establish who is taking responsibility for the child. The sharing of custody would be the last remaining legal connection between a couple. There would be some kinks to iron out in this area (and probably some others, and perhaps larger kinks than I suspect,) but it wouldn’t be impossible to figure out.

And then, people could stop wasting so much energy and passion debating what the word “marriage” should mean for everyone else, and they can instead live by their own definition.

4 Responses to “Let’s privatize marriage”