Honolulu Lite
You know you are in trouble when you try to regulate something even though you don't quite know what that something is.
Marriage is a union. But a union of what? A union of whom? What is the purpose of marriage? How did it start? How has it changed? How should it change? How many people can marry each other? Who's in charge of marriage?
Other than that first statement - that marriage is a union - you can't get everyone to agree on anything else regarding the institution of marriage.
So how the hell can government set up fair guidelines for this thing called marriage? It can't. And it shouldn't.
As I've said before, I'm all for gays getting married, but I'm not for government-sanctioned marriage. Not for gays. Not for anyone. It's none of the government's business who gets married or why.
Because we've become accustomed to government being involved in marriage, requiring health tests and marriage certificates, this concept may be a bit hard to grasp at first. But it's simple. Which came first, marriage or government?
Marriage historically is simply the union of two people, usually through a common law, or religious or cultural rites. Although some religions have intruded into the act of marriage by setting up their own rules and regulations, marriage in its most basic form is a decision by two people to spend the rest of their lives together.
From a survival point of view, it made sense. It provided a structure for safely raising young. In fact, some anthropologists, or at least some pulp fiction writers, such as Michael Crichton, believe that the entire concept of
"family" arose because human babies were incapable of protecting themselves. Other animals, such as deer and horses, have to be up and running shortly after birth if they are expected to survive. But a human baby's brain is larger than that of other animals. The child is born while baby and brain are small enough to safely exit the mother. It essentially is premature and helpless. Some believe our whole family structure sprung from this need to protect babies.
MARRIAGE grew out of this system. Simple unions to assure survival. There was no need for government to be involved.
Today, the family structure is failing and other systems are being used to protect children. But people are still interested in marriage. Even people of the same gender. And why shouldn't they be? They want to survive like everyone else. And in these days of AIDS, having a partner for life is the best defense against sexually transmitted diseases.
But that doesn't mean government has to be involved. Government doesn't have to create yet another class of citizens receiving special treatment.
Instead, any special treatment enjoyed by married couples should be removed. Marital status should not entitle individuals to special tax breaks, health costs or insurance fees. Single men and women should not become second-class citizens by government mandate.
Government's main entree into marriage regulation has been for health reasons. Historically, couples about to be married have been tested for diseases. But there is no reason why such tests have to be tied to the ritual of marriage. If public health is at stake, it's the health of the entire public, not just married folks.
So get government out of the marriage biz. Any gay couples who think they'll have a better union simply because of a piece of stamped paper should look at the statistics. More heterosexual couples are tearing up that piece of paper than ever before.
