Having
watched the gay marriage debate, it's become clear to me that neither
side really understands freedom. I am part of a small (but hopefully
growing) group who believes that the proper application of freedom
yields a clear solution that both sides will be satisfied with.
What is freedom?
What freedom is: It's the right to live as you want as long as you aren't infringing on other people or their property.
What freedom isn't: The
right to have a government bureaucracy give you a certificate of
approval and special benefits for the lifestyle you choose.
In
the case of marriage, it is a voluntary cultural or religious activity
and as such, having any law that changes how the government treats
people because of their involvement in it is automatically a violation
of freedom. Giving special treatment to somebody because of their
religion or their involvement in a particular ceremony is just as much
against the first amendment as banning it.
Imagine
if the government decided to handle other religious and cultural
matters the same way they do with marriage. Each religion would have to
petition the government for approval of their baptism (and baptised
people would be treated differently by the government than
non-baptised). Then we'd have a big equality argument where
non-christians would also want the benefits of being baptised but others
would object because it would violate the sanctity of baptism.
Or
perhaps the government should provide a tax break for Thanksgiving
turkeys. After all, those are an important part of our culture, so there should be government support for them. However, it would have to be a bureaucrat-approved Thanksgiving turkey. We
would then have our national argument about what constitutes a proper
Thanksgiving turkey. Vegetarians would say "Hey, we're not getting equal
treatment," while others would say "replacing a turkey with a block of
tofu really demeans an important American tradition."
In
both of the examples, it is probably clear to the reader that the
answer isn't to make sure that government gives special recognition to
all groups. The answer is that the government should just stay out of it
completely. Why not apply the same to marriage?
So what would marriage be without government?
Marriage
becomes a private contract between individuals. Terms about what people
are expected to do, what the conditions are for divorce, and other such
can be set by the people getting married instead of by the government.
For
the LGBTQ community, they now have equal treatment. The government
isn't setting one group above another or blocking anyone from doing what
the others can.
For
those who oppose gay marriage, the answer is a little more complicated.
One of the strong objections they often bring up is that allowing gay
marriage on its own isn't the problem, but that it's the first step
toward criminalizing their religion. We can see examples in Europe where
this issue results in the government violating free speech (for
example: http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1057006.html).
However, if the approach is to just avoid special treatment for any
group, this is much less likely to happen than when we have government
dictating our morals.
The
other objection usually given against gay marriage is the belief that
marriage comes from God and is supposed to be on his terms. If that's
the case, then the last thing you should want is for the government to
replace God's terms with their own. Get the government out entirely, and
then your religion can determine marriage terms based on what you
believe God wants them to be instead of what a bunch of congressmen says
that they are.
Conclusion:
Like
so many other problems, this one exists because of a lack of freedom.
Implement freedom fully by removing the government from matters in which
it doesn't belong, and the problem is solved.
I totally agree. If we ever managed to achieve something like that, people would have to understand that if you wan't to have a same sex marriage, you will have to go to a religion or organization that performs same sex marriages. If a religion chooses not to, don't whine about it, go somewhere else. In fact, I believe that if an insurance company didn't wan't to insure a same sex family as a family, they shouldn't have to. Don't whine about it, go some where else. Each person, group, or company who takes a stand on the issue, will receive the support and praise of those who agree with them and the rebuke of those who don't. It's a truly free society where the market holds businesses and organizations accountable and not the government.
ReplyDeleteI'd comment on your facebooks but I'm just a friend of a friend. Anyways, while I agree with your argument and that the government should just stay out of it I would like to mention something you may not have thought of.
ReplyDeleteIt would NOT be a simple thing to tell the government to stop managing marriages since so many things are effected by that unity at present. If you get married and then buy a house it becomes "community property" meaning that both the wife and the husband have an interest in it. The same applies to pretty much all they obtain whether real estate or not during their marriage with the exception of inheritance and gifts (so long as those are not maintained with funds obtained during marriage). So the problem comes that if the government pulls out of tracking or handling marriages, what happens when someone dies? What if they get a divorce? Who get's the house? Do they owe eachother anything? does the state help decide it at that point or do they get to duke it out between themselves? Insurance companies also act differently to married couples as you mentioned. Well if the government isn't regulating marriages then why should the insurance company care? For that matter how would they prove you were married? Contact your church? What about Aethiests? Could they not get married since they aren't part of a church?
The move you propose seems simple on the surface but would effect far too many reaching area's of our present system. While I don't approve of them placing RESTRICTIONS on someone's life choices, to completely cut them out on it would cause far more harm... at this point.
Since I wasn't watching comments, this is coming in really late, but in response to you, Computer Guy, joint ownership (and the rules for where possessions go in the event of death, divorce, or other such) is part of the contract.
ReplyDeleteAs for Atheists, they can enter into any contract they wish, just like a religious person. If they choose to call it marriage, there's no reason they can't.