I had wanted to wait on this and do some research first so I could dazzle you with facts and figures. Things like the percentage of the world that has a significant portion of the population which accepts polygamy, or the fact that in some countries they are debating whether or not to add a third gender to the legal definitions to allow transsexuals and hijras a better way to identify themselves.
But I know I’m not going to get to that soon, so I’m just going to shoot from the hip on this one.
First, let me state my opinion. Marriage is a religious and social institution. Not a legal construct. The recognition by any government of a marraige is simply an acknowledgement that a group of people have entered into a binding agreement with each other. In a large portion of the world, this is identified as a group consisting of one man and one woman. But the number of exceptions to this norm, both past and present, are myriad.
Now, whether or not you agree with this vision of marriage lets get down to the nitty gritty. It has been shown over and over that governments cannot legislate morality. Period. They can pass laws about moral issues. But it is impossible to change someone’s morals by making something illegal or mandatory. The most glaring example of this I can think of is Prohibition. As a theory its not horrible. Alchohol is a seriously double edged sword. But the essence of the problem is that you cannot tell an entire country what is right and what is wrong. All you can do is try to build concensus. It will work for small populations but not a whole country. There are plenty of townships and counties in this country who have laws against alchohol sales on Sunday’s and there even a few remaining spots that are comepletely "dry". But in the end, prohibition failed because even with a majority opinion, you cannot force morals on people.
Now GW Bush has backed the constitutional ammendment to define marraige in some pretty narrow, albeit widely accepted, terms.
Ain’t gonna work folks. Why not? Well, lets start with our title today. What is a marriage? Its a joinging together of a group of people for social or religious reasons. It serves to help conserve capital and provide stability for the members of the group. Notice, there is no mention of government in there. If I want to marry one woman or six, or six men for that matter, and we all agree to the terms of the union then the deed is done. If I belong to a church that will offer its blessing to such a union then all the better for me.
But that is an issue to be had between me and my partner(s) and the church. The federal government has zero place in that. Ammending the bedrock document of our government isn’t going to keep it from happening any more than the 18th ammendment stopped folks from knocking back a drink or two. What it will do is alienate a pretty healthy portion of the population.
At the risk of rambling on for another 1000 words or so let me sum it up.
Leave the Constitution alone. If you have to fight out the legal aspects of civil unions, let it be done in the courts and local governments. That’s what they are for.
And in case you were wondering, oh faithful reader. This is the straw that broke the non-voting camel’s back. See you at the polls!
