Who Should Define Marriage?

Column for week of June 8, 2015

     One of the hottest of the hot button issues of recent
years has been same sex marriage.  There is plenty that should
be considered about government involvement in marriage.  The
same sex marriage issue does more to obscure the basic issues
than to move toward any solution.

     The traditional definition of marriage is a relationship
between members of opposite sexes.  The number of each may
vary.  Even in a polygamist marriage the wives aren't
considered married to each other.  To call same sex relations
marriage corrupts the English language and reduces the
usefulness of the word marriage for purposes of
communication.  "Marriage" must now be accompanied by a
modifier if it is to express what "marriage" used to mean.

     Marriage is a partnership between individuals.  The big
question isn't about the names we use to describe those
partnerships.  The big issue is, Who will define those
partnerships?  Presently marriage is defined by government. 
Anyone desiring to participate in a government marriage must
jump through the government hoops and accept a relationship
governed by government rules.

     Individuals may, and do, form partnerships not
sanctioned by government.  Some of those partnerships are
expressly forbidden by government.  Others, government courts
merely refuse to recognize and enforce.

     Why are some individuals so determined to have their

partnerships recognized as government marriages?  

Government grants many privileges and benefits to 

participants in a government marriage.  If a partnership isn't 

recognized as a government marriage, those privileges and 

benefits don't apply.

     Making partnerships work and endure isn't easy.  Half
or so of government marriages end up on the rocks.  Having
the terms of the partnership dictated by government doesn't
increase the odds that the partners can make it work.

     There is no good reason why government should be in
the marriage business.  There are a number of reasons why it
shouldn't be.  Individuals should be free to negotiate such
peaceful uncoerced partnerships as they choose.  The number
and gender of the individuals should be for them to choose.

     Government should also refrain from granting special
privileges to any partnership.  Individuals would be free to
refuse to be part of any partnership of which they don't
approve.  They could also try to persuade others not to join
some or all such partnerships.

     Government should allow all partners equal access to
government courts to resolve disputes in voluntary, peaceful
partnerships.  Encouraging and discouraging partnerships
should be left to individuals and voluntary associations of
individuals.  The most that government can add to partnerships
called marriage or by any other name is "Do it my way or I
will hurt you" rules.

     "Reason" magazine published an article by an attorney
who represents individuals forming non traditional partnerships. 
These partnerships may involve two, three or four individuals. 
Obviously when three or more are involved, some must be of
the same gender.

     I don't buy the garbage about everyone being free to
invent their own gender.  Like it or not individuals are stuck
with the gender they are assigned biologically.  An individual
can mutilate its body to obscure its gender.  So far that doesn't
change the chromosomes.

     Some people are going to pursue such partnerships
whether or not government, or anyone else approves.  What is
to be gained by forcing such individuals to form their
partnerships in a legal twilight zone where disputes can be
resolved and agreements enforced only with underworld style
tactics?

     Peaceful partnerships should be forged to fit the needs
and desires of the partners, not to please government
busybodies.  Only partnerships for non peaceful purposes
should be discouraged with force.

aldmccallum@gmail.com
                                * * * * *
                                 * * * *
                                  * * *
                                   * *
                                     *
Copyright 2015
Albert D. McCallum