- Politics and Social Issues»
- Church & State Relations
Ending the Same Sex Marriage Debate
Marriage is Illegal for All, not just Gay People
Prior to the Civil War there were no State licensing requirements for a man and a woman to get married. Neither George Washington nor Abraham Lincoln received a license to marry their wives. It had traditionally been a civil covenant between a man and a woman often, but not always, sealed in the eyes of God according to the couples specific and personal faith. It did not require the religious connection, but that was the case in most instances. Why then do I make the claim that "Marriage is Illegal for ALL"? Quite simply put...because the State, through laws passed within those States, say it is so. Since 1929, all states have had some sort of licensing requirement that must be obtain from the State in order to be legally married. According to Merriam-Webster's definition of license we'll see that marriage is indeed illegal.
The definition is ~ a permission granted by a competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful.
So, you may be asking yourself, "How does that make marriage illegal?"
The Racist Component to State Licensed Marriage
After the Civil War and into the early years of the 20th century, States began to require marriage licenses to get married. The question is, Why? The most common reason attributed to these requirements was to stop interracial marriages. 38 States had restrictions for Whites marrying Blacks, Mulattoes, Indians, Japanese, Chinese etc. It was, therefor, turned into a licensing issue. Marriage became illegal without a State marriage license, which gave the government the right to deny a license and, in doing so, deny a marriage. The mindset was one of government sanctioned racial bigotry and for some even eugenics. The practice of requiring a marriage license has become second nature to most people in today's world and is rarely given a second thought. We don't even question the concept, let alone the reasoning behind it. We accept it, as so many things, as "just the way we do things". This is yet another trespass of the government into the private lives of it's citizens. So, what do we do?
Solving the Issue of Marriage for All
The answer is actually quite simple...not easy, but simple. Ending the government's control of marriage would eliminate the issue regardless of the gender of those people seeking to marry. If we were to allow it to, once again, be a civil bond without the governmental shadow, then there would be no need to redefine marriage on a governmental level. Allowing religious organizations to marry whomever they, as individual denominations, saw fit would open up each person to choose the denomination or religion that fits their beliefs. Allowing marriage to fall from the State's power and become a matter of faith and/or a simple civil bond for those without faith would open up freedoms and liberties to all citizens that are now merely a point of contention. This will allow each couple, regardless of race, gender or religion, to enter into a marriage covenant that fits with their belief system. This should not be confused with allowing the government to mandate that any religious organizations should be forced to marry any two people if it goes against their convictions. It will, however, take one more overreaching power away from the government. That leaves us with only one more issue...what about property, wills, insurance etc?
But, What About the Perks?
Once we have removed the hand of government from the marriage picture, we will have to allow the free-market to do it's thing. Any two adults, regardless of gender, religion, race or creed can enter into any legal contract of their desire. They can purchase a house, name each other in a will, start a business together etc...whether they are married or not. So, this is not even an issue under the current status of marriage. Where we will see opportunity for change is in the realm of insurance. But, this too will be the product of the free market and NOT the government. An insurance company can choose to allow as many people on an insurance policy as they chose under a free-market system. If a man wants to allow another man on his policy, then that is his right as long as the insurance company will allow it. The insurance company needs the freedom to decide who they cover, what they cover and at what costs. Now insurance companies, freed from at least one layer of government bureaucracy, could compete for more premiums, from more people.
People 1 ~ Government 0...
Most problems are not actually fixed by the government, but rather are exasperated by it. The free-market is the truest form of freedom for expanding liberty and opportunity for We the People. The longer we look to the government to "fix" our problems and make things "fair", the longer we will slip out of sync with the Constitution and our Liberty.