In Consideration of Marriage, Part I

Just last week, Our Fearless Leader spoke in favor of a law or amendment which would restrict marriage to one man and one woman. This statement certainly is in reaction to the recent Supreme Court ruling that a Texas sodomy statue was unconstitutional. The statement may also have been in response to a Canadian recognition of same-sex unions.

On the surface, this consideration of a “bedroom” issue seems contrary to Republican goals of laize faire government (a.k.a. “Getting the government off people's backs”). I would contend that those who support this type of reform are somewhat schizophrenic — it is, at the least, inconsistent to support laize faire economics while at the same time supporting government intervention in the bedroom. These types of issues seem to be primarily motivated by the religious right, a section of the party which has insured its continued power.

But one must ask whether marriage is a concern of government at any level. Legally speaking, marriage is a type of contract entered into by two people. The question then becomes whether that contract is to be recognized by municipalities beyond the place where the contract originated. This does take the romance out of the matter, but beginning at this point helps defuse the issue.

At this basic level, a marriage contract may be analogous to a contract affecting interstate commerce. Therefore, the Federal Government might have a role insuring that states reciprocally recognize contracts. But does any government have the right to restrict who enters into these contracts?

The primary business concern in a marriage contract is the disposition of property. This is a concern which impacts insurance and inheritance. There may be no legitimate reason for government to restrict the marriage to two people, but this restriction simplifies the disposition of property. Certainly, it cannot be denied that emotional issues between the two parties also complicate the matter. Imagine how complex a legal divorce for polygamists might be!

But let’s be frank: the primary reason to restrict the marriage contract to two people is tradition. At some point in our evolution, a form of monogamy seemed to be best suited to the human psyche. This is certainly the dominant form of the majority of the world's cultures today. Doesn’t mean the form is right, just that “couples” is the norm. Bigamy has been outlawed in the U.S. for generations . . . maybe since the very beginning. Even this may be more intrusion than a pure libertarian would favor, but it is an intrusion the majority of our population has learned to live with.

Let's face it, there is a degree of society pressure here: even if there were no law present, there would be a level of prejudice against a non-traditional polygamous family unit. Such a family would likely be shunned and held suspect.

So, ok, let’s grant that a "civil union" should be restricted to two people. What interest does any level of government have in restricting that union to people of different genders?

Two words: tradition and progeny.

Stay tuned for part two.