~ In Defense of Homosexual Unions ~
7/15/01

Inspiration from reports on Fox news that Traditional Values Coalition has begun lobbying efforts for a Constitutional Amendment to prevent gay marriage.

"It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve." ~Henry George

The above quote fairly accurately reflects my view on government. It should stay out of the morality business, and do as minimal a job of legislating as need be. On these facts alone, I will attempt to argue that government has no business regulating the "Institution of Marriage" as my opponents are fond of saying. However, if my opponents are so fond of marriage, I am happy to concede it to them for a better construct that is applied fairly and uniformly by the state. For simplicity I will use the term unions in place of marriage throughout this text.

Before I proceed with my argument, let us posit that the government does have a true and real interest in regulating unions (marriage) to some degree. Contrary to my previous assertion, I agree that government is justified in regulating some aspects of these unions (marriages). Succinctly, I agree that government may establish an age at which two individuals consent to unite (marry). This regulation does nothing to inhibit the unions (marriage), but rather only proclaims that one must be of a certain age to make life altering decisions. This regulation runs parallel to civil laws that prevent minors from entering into contracts and the like. Further, I concede that government does have a real interest in preventing incest for a number or reasons to lengthy to describe here. I accept that it is well within the rights of government to make this prohibition. With these exclusions aside, I will reiterate that government has no right, nor does it have any compelling reason to regulate unions (marriage) in any way.

So the thesis of my argument is this:

1. The state has decided that it is in its best interest to offer legal citizens (not minors) various benefits, responsibilities, and recognition provided for in a state sanctioned union.

2. These responsibilities, benefits, and recognition are offered by city, state, and federal governments to any two legal citizens who obtain a union from the sanctioning government or quasi-government body.

3. Unions can be between any two consenting adults who have met the criteria proscribed by the state (age, proximity of relation).

4. Marriage and its associated benefits will be offered solely by the church, temple, or other religious institution and will be adjunct to the benefits offered by the state.

In practice, any two consenting adults who have met the state's criteria may be united. This would offer all couples benefits from the state without bias to race, religion, or sexual orientation. The "Institution of Marriage" would be preserved because the state would excuse itself and marriage would fall entirely within the purview of the church, temple, etc...

If a religious organization chose not to recognize unions between two men or two women they would be within their rights. Homosexual couples who wished to marry would either need to find a congregation that accepted gay marriage or simply deal with the fact that their chosen religion does not endorse their union.

Simply, this arrangement provides a way for religious conservatives to protect "marriage" while allowing the state to administer benefits, rights, and responsibilities, to every member of the populace without proscribing any arbitarily imposed parameters.