On Marriage

On August 4th, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of California Vaughn R. Walker declared that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional ”under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses,” and enjoined the enforcement of said proposition.

I have already made my support for government recognition of same-sex unions known on many occasions, and my extended thoughts on this debate are available elsewhere on this blog. Re-hashing such commentary in detail will help no one; only a summary is necessary: in short, my belief that same sex couples have every right to marry is attenuated by my belief that sovereignty in the United States lies with the people – not the judiciary. As such, any efforts to extend legal recognition of marriage to same-sex couples must begin with an effort to convince the public that this historically essential institution will not be harmed by doing so.

One would think this would be easy given the injury 50% of once-married heterosexual couples, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Mickey Rooney, Britney Spears, and a substantial portion of the Las Vegas economy have done to it. Alas, it is not. But we must persevere. Until we succeed, activists in my camp will antagonize our opponents and enrage the general public by insisting that the matter be resolved by the judiciary. To make matters worse, they continually conflate lawmakers with those tasked with interpreting the law. It’s enough  to make a person write extended blog posts on a subject of relatively little global importance while drinking cheap gin and smoking cigars on a Saturday night.

But I digress.

What struck me by last week’s ruling is this: No matter how often the spectacle presents itself, I simply cannot become accustomed to the sight of hundreds or thousands of same-sex couples waiting with bated breath to hear the ruling of some judicial cog regarding the status of their nuptials. “Can we get married or not?” was the phrase apparently uttered by countless gay and lesbian individuals on the Left Coast.

I think it is a combination of both personal experience and an innate libertarian disposition which makes me so startled by this type of statement. I know a number of same-sex couples who have vowed to spend their lives together, and without a doubt, I consider them to be married. One couple in particular has been married nearly 20 years, and shows every sign of continuing for another 20. They are married. You don’t think so? God disagrees, you say? I respect your opinion. But no amount of direct democracy, legislative action, or judicial fiat will convince me otherwise. Whether or not same-sex marriage is recognized by the government is a practical matter that affects insurance status, hospital visits, and the like. These are certainly critical issues, but they do not address the key question of whether or not a same-sex couple is committed to one another until death.

Marriage is an intensely personal matter, made public by profession, and made spiritual by solemn vow. I am married to my wife because I made a vow to love, honor, and cherish her for the rest of my life, and my word is my bond. There are nearly 100 of our friends and family members who can attest to the fact that these vows were made. My now brother in law, a pastor, officiated, and in doing so provided continuity between the interpersonal, social, and – of primary importance – spiritual. Yes, at one point I did sign a marriage license, and it was registered with the appropriate government agency; the government recognizes our union. However, I regard this recognition as no more important than the lease on my apartment, an insurance policy, or countless other contractual relationships into which I have entered. What makes marriage different is its spiritual and social character.

Above all, what troubles me about the same-sex marriage debate today is the level of dependence on the state which it betrays. The government has become so pervasive and intrusive into all of our affairs that we now rely on it to define our interpersonal relationships.

I will rest for a few words and allow the absurd nature of this situation to sink in.

Now, I repeat: those of you who are ultimately waiting on a SCOTUS ruling to determine whether or not you can marry are relying on the state to determine the status of your personal relationships. To same-sex couples across the world who  wish to make a lifelong commitment to one another, I say you do yourself and our society a disservice by allowing such an intrusion into your personal lives. The government may fail to recognize your contractual obligations to one another – as well as the contractual obligations of insurance companies, hospitals, etc. – but this does nothing to define your relationship.

Get married. I and millions of other Americans will recognize and honor your union.

Then address the government’s shortcomings with respect to contractual enforcement.


No Responses to “On Marriage”  

  1. No Comments

Leave a Reply





Get Firefox!