Marriage amendment
Somebody asked me a question yesterday about the proposed "Marriage Protection Amendment" (or whatever they're calling it now), which is supposed to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. The question was, how would it apply to intersexed people, that is, someone who is not clearly either a man or a woman? According to KindredSpiritLakeside about one person in 2000 is ambiguously sexed. This is not about sexual preference, but sexual appearance.
I'm the wrong person to ask that question. I'm not a lawyer. Logically, I supppose that amendment would allow anybody who is legally a man and anybody else who is legally a woman to marry each other, but I'm no expert.
More to the point, the marriage amendment is a bad idea. Amendments to the US Constitution should deal strictly with the structure, function, and powers of the federal government. The one amendment that dealt with behavior, the 18th (which prohibited "intoxicating liquors") had such awful unintended consequences that another amendment, the 21st, was needed to repeal it. We need a slogan: "No More Prohibitions!"
Marriage as we know it is an entanglement of church and state. It's a holdover from the Middle Ages, when Church and State were two aspects of the same "establishment." The Church promoted the divine right of kings, and the State defended the Church. The clergy performed marriages, and the law recognized them. In the US today, the local government issues a "marriage license," but the marriage does not actually happen until a member of a state-authorized clergy "performs" it, or unless a "civil" marriage (evidently, from its name, a special and perhaps lower class of marriage) is performed by an authorized government official.
Legally, marriage used to be a license to have children, or even a license to have sex. But over the past century, the law has changed. It no longer regulates what goes on between two consenting adults in their bedroom, and has become more open-minded about how many people of what kind it takes to raise children.
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. "Marriage" should be a concern of the "church," and the "state" should concern itself with "civil union." Marriages can be performed by whatever clergy (or substitute for clergy) the people involved want, but the law should have no concern with those ceremonies. For purposes of insurance, inheritance, and other legal matters, the state should recognize civil unions between any two (or maybe even more) people who want to live together and form a permanent family.
I'm the wrong person to ask that question. I'm not a lawyer. Logically, I supppose that amendment would allow anybody who is legally a man and anybody else who is legally a woman to marry each other, but I'm no expert.
More to the point, the marriage amendment is a bad idea. Amendments to the US Constitution should deal strictly with the structure, function, and powers of the federal government. The one amendment that dealt with behavior, the 18th (which prohibited "intoxicating liquors") had such awful unintended consequences that another amendment, the 21st, was needed to repeal it. We need a slogan: "No More Prohibitions!"
Marriage as we know it is an entanglement of church and state. It's a holdover from the Middle Ages, when Church and State were two aspects of the same "establishment." The Church promoted the divine right of kings, and the State defended the Church. The clergy performed marriages, and the law recognized them. In the US today, the local government issues a "marriage license," but the marriage does not actually happen until a member of a state-authorized clergy "performs" it, or unless a "civil" marriage (evidently, from its name, a special and perhaps lower class of marriage) is performed by an authorized government official.
Legally, marriage used to be a license to have children, or even a license to have sex. But over the past century, the law has changed. It no longer regulates what goes on between two consenting adults in their bedroom, and has become more open-minded about how many people of what kind it takes to raise children.
The state should get out of the marriage business altogether. "Marriage" should be a concern of the "church," and the "state" should concern itself with "civil union." Marriages can be performed by whatever clergy (or substitute for clergy) the people involved want, but the law should have no concern with those ceremonies. For purposes of insurance, inheritance, and other legal matters, the state should recognize civil unions between any two (or maybe even more) people who want to live together and form a permanent family.
posted by GrumbleGrouch at 9:43 AM
1 Comments:
I agree whole heartedly with your analysis and thinking about what you said reminded me of an excellent book by another grumbly old grouch named Robert Heinline. It was called Friday. I think I'll check out my bookshelves and see if I can find my copy so I can refresh my memory of it brfore I comment further.
Post a Comment
<< Home