Would you invent marriage?

The Indiana Senate is discussing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Last Wednesday the amendment passed the Judiciary Committee (archived), which means it will go before the full Senate. If it passes the Senate and the House, it would be on the ballot for the 2008 general election.

For some reason, instead of having a discussion about whether or not government should define marriage in the first place, the discussion is all about how they should define it. How would you feel about having to get a government license in order to date someone? How about a license to be friends with someone? To me, these ideas are as ridiculous as obtaining a license in order to get married. Marriage is a social issue and should not require government intervention or permission.

Getting government out of marriage would solve the whole debate. Contrary to alarmists, society would not crumble and heterosexual families would not suddenly fall apart. Well, not anymore than they do already; it's not like government's definition of marriage has been keeping the divorce rate low.

I think Doug Stanhope summed it up well:

“If marriage didn't exist, would you ever invent it? Would you look at her and go, 'This stuff we've got together is so good – we've got to get the government in on this! This is way too powerful for just two people, we need regulation on this, we need some legislation!' You wouldn't invent that.”

This article was originally published on INtake Blogsquad (archived).

❦

View responses or leave your own response

published February 5, 2007

#blogsquad

Responses

Ali – February 5, 2007
I think you make an excellent point. It would be great if more mainstream politicians took your stance.

Christopher C. – February 5, 2007
Based on the four paragraphs above, I'd agree. Licensing friendships, etc isn't a good idea.

Jon – February 5, 2007
I don't know, government sanctioned friends/marriages/parenting might not be such a good idea. I mean do you honestly think you have the best friends you can get?

What about socializing friendships? Or commufriends? Everyone gets a friend, some are just more friendly than others?

At the moment I'd probably settle for commumarriage. You know, have the government assign you your spouse. It takes all the hassel out, but leaves all the mystery? I mean am I a murderer? convict? lawyer? You never really know.

Kraz

Jon – February 5, 2007
er... meant bad, bad idea, not such a bad idea. Wow words failed me once again.

Kyle S. – February 6, 2007
I completely agree (I think). I was just discussing this again yesterday with a friend. I don't understand all the ins and outs of insurance and tax law regarding marriage, but the concept of a marriage license has always struck me as odd. I think the practical value of such a thing is most apparent in the light of the legal proceeding surrounding divorce. When two people have co-ownership of most or all of their property and even children, it can get really messy when they want to split again. In this light, I was telling my friend that government should drop the word “marriage” altogether--as that is defined by God--and stick to instituting “civil unions” which could be obtained by anyone, be they straight, gay, or not sexually involved with one another at all. Wouldn't it be great if a single adult could enjoy all the symbiotic tax and insurance benefits provided to married couples with a good friend and roommate? Perhaps even a “family” could be composed of several people who aren't blood related at all but simply share a home and possessions together. It would be very communal. Alas, I don't know if this scenario would solve more problems or create more, but I thought it was an interesting idea.

Jeremiah – February 7, 2007
Excellent points. People would still act gay even if there was a law against gay marriage.

I'm glad I don't need licenses for friends. It would make it SO much harder to watch previous episodes of LOST with friends. -_- (I make it hard enough as it is with sleep and all...)