Gay marriage and you

DAVID WHITESOCK — Looks like this is what the Opinion Blog is going to become, a back and forth between Matt Hittle and I. Both of us are libertarian in philosophy, but as issues get parsed out, I’m coming to realize that we are on extreme ends of the libertarian spectrum.

Take his recent web column on gay marriage for instance.

Matt is almost there. He gets on that gay marriage-libertarian road, but takes the exit right before suggesting an actually solution to the issue. This is no fault of Matt’s per se, it just happens to be the way political discourse goes in this country.

What needs to be addresses, which both comments on the article touch on, is this notion that marriage is a “right.” No, marriage is not a right. Marriage is a privilege, a luxury, an extra-curricular choice to life, if you will.

The problem with the gay marriage debate is we have all seemed to zip past what the proper place of marriage is in a political society, especially ours, and what is its definition.

I think we should all agree that marriage is, and for a long time has been, an institution of organized religion. Unfortunately, the United States government has bastardized the institution and made it a function of our tax code. Which creates the problem.

Like it or not, the connotation with the word marriage is a union between man and woman under the auspices of religion. Why should there be any change in this definition? Organized religion is a greater sham on people than governments are, but marriage belongs to that realm, so be it.

Governments, particularly the U.S. government, recognized at some point, that the institution of marriage could be a viable political football. It was recognized that the segment of the population which was married was a large one, and in order to keep this group of voters happy, maybe there should be incentives within the tax code for entering into this “moderately stable institution.” And eureka, tax credits for married folks were created.

The problem with this, however, is that if we agree that marriage is a religious institution, then the meddling of government in this sphere is not necessarily proper. I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court on the separation of church and state and the banning of all (or most) religious functions from public schools and such, which has been an extreme misinterpretation of Thomas Jefferson’s original intent in his “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptists.

It may begin to appear that I am stepping on my own toes with this argument, but hear me out. Jefferson’s main concern with religion and government was merely the fear that the government would sanction one form of religion or another and enforce that religion upon the people. The involvement of religion, generally, within the government is not necessarily a bad thing, and I presume Jefferson would agree.

However, regarding marriage, government has chosen to benefit a certain group of people over another, when such a benefit is not at all necessary. Having a marriage tax credit or exception within our tax code could be done away with and this issue in relation to gay marriage would be solved.

There is another layer to this issue which essentially clouds the whole debate. Because marriage between a man and a woman is “sanctioned” by the federal government through the tax code, states have taken that lead and extended other benefits or legal protections. These legal protections do not extend to unmarried couples nor gay couples… but gay couples feel the burning desire to have access to those protections. That is understandable, but as the system is set up currently, only marriages are recognized.

What many states have chosen to do is to allow for these legal protections to be extended through civil unions. Not only does this feeble attempt at a solution not solve anything, it makes the problem between federal and state law even more muddy. Because the federal government has made marriage a part of its purview, they now feel that civil unions established by the states are an infringement on their Constitutional powers.

Here, the federal government (as is mostly the case) is wrong and the states are right.

The federal government never should have sanctioned marriage through the tax code, that was an unconstitutional move. The federal government cannot create a so-called ban on gay marriage. It doesn’t exist. What the states can do, however, and Jefferson would agree, is create for themselves a civil union law which would be the measure for all couples — male/female, male/male, female/female — who wish to enter into a contractual partnership for certain legal protections. This is what should be offered to all people.

Government, both state and federal need to wipe marriage exceptions from their tax and legal code. Marriage must be returned to the sanctuary for which it belongs — religion — and governments could concentrate on establishing a legal framework which would answer all the problems relating to living wills, power of attorney, property rights, etc.

This is a long post, but this issue always gets short-shrift, which does the debate more harm than good.