Marriage and Uncle Sam: a divorce waiting to happen

The fury over Prop 8 involves two equally strident, equally passionate camps; one that wants government to define marriage to allow people of the same sex to marry and another that seeks to restrict marriage to mean a legal union between a man and a woman only.

I confess, there may be a lot of sound, relevant arguments on both sides and there may not be. I’ll not bother with the finer points. Instead, the burden falls on me to illuminate what is missing from the debate which, as often happens, is painfully obvious: what role does government even have in defining marriage?

This question might appear out of the blue to many, but then again, most people never really give the blue adequate consideration. To these people, government is legitimately involved in marriage for the simple reason that as far back as living memory goes; that’s how it has always been.

This is hardly the end of the discussion, but it makes for a fine beginning. To trace how far off the correct path we are, I think it is useful to consider what the fundamentals of marriage involve. Let’s consider the day of the wedding itself. Generally, it finds two people (usually a man and a woman, but I digress) making a binding promise before their peers and before their god. In legalistic lingo, marriage might be reduced to a simple contract where the pastor or priest is the officiator and the family and friends are the witnesses.

But amid the general sweet loveliness of it all there lurks a shadowy, uninvited guest. This offender is a government bureaucrat and he, though a complete stranger to all assembled, has the deciding say on whether or not the blissful pair’s union will enjoy the auspices of being an “official” marriage. Until this cheerless bureaucrat makes his ugly little mark with his crude little stamp on that useless little shred of paper, all the love in the world, all the well-wishing of family and friends, and all the sacred rituals combined, cannot make the marriage official. What an insult to marriage, what an insult to love!

I don’t know about you, but this bureaucrat fellow seems like an unpleasant and perfectly needless interruption to an otherwise dreamy day. What right does government have to restrict the consensual contracts made between two competent individuals? Is it not true that a vast number of legal contracts are made every day without the intervention of government? But, I’m told, people are protesting in the streets, clamoring for this misunderstood privilege of having the government recognize their marriage as official.

It seems we have it all backwards. Aren’t those most directly concerned with the definition and validity of marriage those who are actually being married? Furthermore, it would seem that the best one could hope for is that the government would simply step out of the marriage business and leave people free to live as they see fit. Nonetheless, many seem convinced that something as important as marriage is best entrusted to the government’s safekeeping.

Now, I don’t mean to marginalize anyone’s strong convictions whatever they may be, but I have to point out how laughably na’ve it is to trust something that one holds dear to the government. Need elaboration? Just look what the government’s done with your tax dollars lately. Liberals, do you enjoy financing the Iraq War? Conservatives, how fond are you of funding abortion?

So what’s the solution? Strangely, it’s the same whatever your stance; disregard the government when it comes to marriage. You want traditional marriage? Well, marry your reproductive opposite and stick to the churches that respect your definition on marriage. (For consistency’s sake, avoid that one where the pastor turned out to be engaging the services of a male prostitute.) If you advocate a more liberal marriage, well, obviously, you shouldn’t entrust your individual rights to the most egregious and consistent abuser of said rights. Why support the absurd notion that the government has any job legitimizing your marriage at all?

Lately, there’s been a grim search for a final solution that has sparked animosity on both sides. But look, people throughout time have managed (albeit with splotchy success) to carry on peaceably while holding differing opinions on matter of tremendous import. Once you recognize that government is the common enemy to your definition(s) of marriage, you may enjoy a moment of solidarity. And when you can accept anything that’s peaceful, you may enjoy a moment of peace.

Jeremy Hicks is a 2008 political science graduate, the founder of the Cal Poly Libertarian Club and a Mustang Daily politcal columnist.

EDITOR’s NOTE: “Don’t Tread on Me” usually appears on Wednesdays. However, due to the fact that there was no Mustang Daily last Wednesday with the Thanksgiving break, the column appears today and again on Wednesday this week.