I hope I don't shock anybody, but I oppose the federal government's ban on gay marriages. Now, I'm not a big fan fan of homosexuality, homosexuality is one of those things in life I just don't understand, like smoking or golf. Sure I admire Arnold Swarzenegger's body, doesn't mean I want to touch it. I even have a couple of gay friends, (what a cliche!) Of course I'm so naive that I had to be told. My wife claims she can tell. She has an art degree. Now that I think of it she probably tells me she can tell just so that I don't mind her having nude male models all around the house.

Actually my opposition to the federal ban is not what you think, not that I'm so modern and open-minded. It's more that I'm so self-righteousness. There's Marriage, where a man and woman leave their parents, join together to make their own family, promise to love and help each other through thick and thin, rich and poor, health and sickness. If nothing else their love alone has the power to propel them through life's ups and downs. Then there's marriage, where two people make a decision to share resources and debts, to live together to cut their costs. The problem in seeing this clearly is that the two kinds of marriage often coincide, so we call it one thing: "marriage." The first Marriage is ordained by God, regardless of society, sometimes illegally, and is rightfully governed only by religious beliefs, or culture or personal philosophy if you'd prefer to term it that way. The second is a contract between consenting adults, and rightfully is overseen by whatever legal system is in power. The first is implicit, each partner sensing the other, like a dance or basketball team. Promises are not meant literally, but as metaphors for the incomprehensible love that they share. The second is explicit, in front of witnesses, where promises are meant to be upheld, where sanctions are applied if not upheld.

People debate whether a pre-nuptial agreement is necessary. I answer no for the first, but yes for the second concept of marriage. In America today we have so many cultures that we can rightly say we have no culture. The unspoken meaning behind getting married is different from person to person. For instance, I got married in the Catholic Church, and my marriage vows meant a little bit more than the average. (I told you it had to do with self-righteousness.) We promised to stay married our whole lives, we don't accept divorce. My wife and I agreed that we wanted kids, that we would raise them as Catholics. We agreed that our home life would be more important than our employment or recreation. This makes all the subsidiary decisions easier, not easy, just easier. Put the kids in Catholic schools or buy a new car? Get two jobs and stay in California or move? Get a bigger house in the country or a smaller house in the city?

When I got married I resented the government regulation of getting a license, getting a blood test, filling out the forms. I thought of marriage in the first sense. Now I understand the importance in the second sense, that my insurance covers my whole family, that my income is spread out over seven people and so is taxed at a lower rate, that my wife and I together own all our property. I believe the second sense of marriage doesn't depend on the first, that if three little old ladies want to pool their resources and share an apartment, then that's fine. If two people who don't believe in God or Church or society but still want to make at least a temporary commitment in case one gets sick or is laid off, then that should be fine also. Whether they have sex or not is irrelevant from the contractual point of view. Whether their contract is stupid, or perverted, or causes the downfall of society is no more relevent to governemt regulation than a stupid contract between a basketball owner and a superstar, or a perverted contract between a cable television supplier and a motel chain, or causes the downfall of society like a contract between a liquor supplier and a grocery store.

If we would adopt this attitude I believe it will solve many of our "problems" with marriage anyway. If we would decide up front what to do with kids, make it explicit in the contract, to specify up front what are grounds for divorce, then we would be a lot better off. We could easily have predefined contracts. If you get married in a church then that church would have its standard contract. If you want to get a divorce you would have to follow the criteria set up by that church. Many people will want secular weddings, then the state could define what that entails and have some choices there. If you want a yearly renewable contract only then you could easily get one. If you want to maintain seperate financial situations then that could be arranged. There wouldn't be any after the fact renegotiating unless all partied involved wanted to. If a certain type of family works out better it would be obvious. If you want your extended family to vote on whether you should have the plug pulled on medical care, but you don't trust Aunt Martha, write that into the contract.

If this means that some guy "marries" ten people and makes a commune and he declares them all as dependents, so what? If he can support that many people then why should the government care? Are you worried that AIDS will drive up the cost of insurance? Then that should be addressed as a particular manifestation of the general care cost inflation. To solve that issue with a usurpation of principle seems hypocritical. Government should let society develop however it does.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page