Why is the state involved in marriage at all?

[Logan Darklighter]

Ed Morrissey writes:
Now that a judge has issued an incoherent ruling that the federal government has a 14th Amendment interest in the definition of marriage after more than 140 years of apparent disinterest, it may be time to reconsider government involvement in marriage entirely. Townhall’s David Harsanyi offers the argument that government involvement may do more harm than good to the institution, and results from a historical mistake in the first place. Time to get on with the divorce, Harsanyi insists:

In the 1500s, a pestering theologian instituted something called the Marriage Ordinance in Geneva, which made “state registration and church consecration” a dual requirement of matrimony.

We have yet to get over this mistake. But isn’t it about time we freed marriage from the state?

Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman — or no one at all — and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

I certainly don’t believe that gay marriage will trigger societal instability or undermine traditional marriage — we already have that covered — but mostly I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn’t be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.

Be sure to read it all. I’ve written about this repeatedly over the last several years, and while I don’t think that this is an easy path to adopt, it’s going to be the eventual solution. Not only does it take government out of people’s private lives, it also means an end to a divisive and essentially meaningless debate — and it protects houses of faith and ends a potential government interference in matters of religion.

Let’s first dispense with the idea that the government protects the sanctity of marriage. It doesn’t; if government ever did that, that ended with no-fault divorce. Marriage, as run by the government, is the only contract in this country that can be broken by one party alone with no adverse consequences. (Well, that and professional sports contracts, I guess.) Partnership agreements in the business context would disintegrate without at least the threat of government enforcement of its provisions. Marriage as run by government has been disintegrating for decades, as the divorce rate shows, and that has nothing to do with gay relationships.

We would do much better to require people to create partnership contracts in the civil context than get marriage licenses for issues like property sharing, access to family, and so on. If people want to live together and share their lives to that extent, it’s healthier and much less confusing later to have those issues expressly spelled out in an agreement up front, just like any prenuptial agreement today. If two people don’t want to go that far in formalizing their relationship, then they shouldn’t be considered married anyway — and shouldn’t get access to “palimony” and have debates over oral contracts, and so on. If you don’t get it in writing, it doesn’t exist, in the context of personal partnerships.

Then, if people want to get “married,” they can go to the institutions that actuallycare about marriage: churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and so on. Marriage can be a private, faith-based recognition of a sacramental relationship that exists outside of the civil context entirely, and houses of faith can set their own requirements as to what it means and who can participate — just as they do now. Not only does that protect the sanctity of actual marriage much more than a government, but it also means that government has no way to poke the camel’s nose of intervention into the religious tent, as it were, to force houses of faith to conduct marriages that violate their tenets in the name of fairness. Divorcing marriage from the state and dissolving the partnership between government and religion benefits the latter more than the former.

Let government define and enforce contract law, not marriage. If we don’t follow that path, people will shortly become very unhappy about the eventual government definition.

Morrissey pretty much lays out my position on this whole thing. I'm all for letting gays and lesbians get married. And I also am all for getting government out of everywhere it can be removed. Especially out of people's private lives. Why not take care of both and let everybody do what they want?

[Bob Schroeck]

Seems perfectly reasonable and reasoned to me.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Rev Dark]

No, Morrisey is writing twaddle.

Marriage as run by government has been disintegrating for decades, as
the divorce rate shows, and that has nothing to do with gay
relationships.

Whoa there Hoss.  Not true, not even in the same ballpark.   Logical fallacy.  Drawing a correlation between government 'running' marriage and the divorce rate is pure twaddle.  "You cheated on me, beat me, belittle me in front of others; this marriage as run by government just isn't working for me."

Marriage, as run by the government, is the only contract in this
country that can be broken by one party alone with no adverse
consequences.

Again; outright fucking lie.  There are adverse consequences in regards to the division of property, custody of children and pets, etc.  Common law marriage; if you are the sort of douche-bag who lives with a long time girlfriend then dumps her, leaving joint debts, you are legally obligated to pay those debts and maintain contracts (rent/lease/mortgage) that you entered into.  Kids?  Your responsibility.  You have one, you are on the hook.

We would do much better to require people to create partnership
contracts in the civil context than get marriage licenses for issues
like property sharing, access to family, and so on. If people want to
live together and share their lives to that extent, it’s healthier and
much less confusing later to have those issues expressly spelled out in
an agreement up front, just like any prenuptial agreement today. If two
people don’t want to go that far in formalizing their relationship,
then they shouldn’t be considered married anyway — and shouldn’t get
access to “palimony” and have debates over oral contracts, and so on.
If you don’t get it in writing, it doesn’t exist, in the context of
personal partnerships.

Which the rule of law already covers; it is the extension of that rule of law to cover same-sex couples that is at issue here.  Head so far up Ayn Rand's bottom that he's touching Galt. 'Yes Dagny a 60-40 split on fixed assets is acceptable, but I will be retaining 80% of future revenue on Reardon Metal.'  A system rife for abuse.

Let government define and enforce contract law, not marriage. If we
don’t follow that path, people will shortly become very unhappy about
the eventual government definition.

The government already enforces contract law; with a common set of criteria in regards to what is referred to as 'marriage'; this is about extending those same extant privileges to same sex couples.  Being opposed of course, by a set of douche-bags who favor the 'traditional' marriage of their faith.  (Have you read the Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran? - yeah, they all espouse the 'traditional' marriage.)

[Epsilon]

Marriage is always going to be part of the government's interests, because its a contract like any other contract and contracts are the governments business. Also, there are a lot of fundamental rights that are attached to marriage. The right to visit your spouse in the hospital or be consulted in their treatment. Rights in regards to children and so on. Leaving these rights up to the people is not going to result in good things.
----------------
Epsilon

[CattyNebulart]

And those other rights is also why marriage is needed, if it is just a civil union or what have you then a hospital busybody can quite reasonably say that only the spouse (married), parents or childern are allowed to visit.

Or there could be separate tax advantages for marriage and civil unions etc etc.

Germany tried giving gay's a 'separate but equal' type of deal and ran into problems like that.

Marriage is always going to be of interest to goverments, because there are so many things that there must be rules for, eg who gets the kids if the couple splits? what about the assets they had pooled together? debts? etc etc.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."