Today a federal judge, Vaughn Walker, who is apparently gay himself issued a ruling on the subject of Gay marriage in the state of California. California, the nation’s poster child for direct democracy (ie, Mob Rule), passed a referendum (Proposition 8) in 2008, which sought to define marriage in the state as being between a man and a woman. Here we have yet another hot button issue dividing the nation’s conservative and liberal factions. The first salvo in a battle likely to reach the supreme court was fired when the aforementioned federal judge, declared the statute to be in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection provisions. Those on the left have applauded the move, while conservatives vow to appeal the ruling, but in reality both sides are wrong from the standpoint of those who truly cherish freedom.
From an historical standpoint, marriage has been a social contract between a man and woman. Marriages have been endorsed and/or recognized by various governments and religious institutions for over 10,000 years. In various societies and cultures the institution of marriage has varied in both application and formality. In many ancient cultures all that was required for a marriage was the mutual consent of two parties. Even early Christians lacked a formal marriage procedure until the 2nd century and the state did not formally involve itself in western society until the 15th century or later.
Marriage has existed in one form or another in a variety of cultures and regions from Asia to Africa to Europe and the Middle East. Through each of these regions and across the span of history there has been one consistent element: the mutual consent of both parties.
Marriage is a private matter and for many a spiritual matter. It is not a state matter, a government matter or a matter of public policy, anymore than the sexual practices of two parties after a marriage is consummated. The government has no place in defining marriage of any kind, be it a marriage between people of a different race, religion, culture, etc…To this end, the state and the subject of marriage should be completely divorced, so much so that there should be no special favors or recognition afforded people on the basis of marriage. This naturally begs the question: what of matters such as inheritance or the rearing of children?
As the private subject of marriage can have implications on a wider array of issues, such matters should be addressed as any matter between private citizens seeking legal protections for their property or offspring. Parties who consider themselves married should enter into a contractual agreement, binding under force of law to protect their interest. This contractual agreement should not be a requisite act for the existence of marriage but simply a prudent act by those seeking to protect their families and/or property. We must not view the state as a crunch and we must absolve ourselves of the need to validate our actions through the acquiescence of the state. The state exists solely to protect our rights, not to define our behavior. Those who have sought to limit the scope and range of government power must recognize that in calling for government involvement in such private matters we are actually expanding the power of the state in grotesque ways.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06assess.html
