Marriage: Why?

Why does marriage as we know it exist? I can hardly think of a more ridiculous and asinine institution. There are many activities which go completely unquestioned by the American public. Marriage is a major one. As happens in far too many debates, the public discusses two sides of a topic, both of which rest on an underlying assumption which is never mentioned. As Ayn Rand was often fond to point out, both political parties suffer defeat because of the axioms they swallow without questioning. The wrong question: What groups of people shall we allow to wed? The right question: Why should government have a say in marriage?

There exists thorough documentation of the changing conception of Western marriage from its time as a method of social engineering by totalitarian governments, to a spiritual bond between two individuals, to sexual/spiritual bond between man and women, to its highly contested state now. Often, the volatile realization of the concept has been used as a justification for the allowance of gay marriage. The other side responds to this attack with appeals to morals and essentially a structural fundamentalist social philosophy exalting the preeminence of the family. The debate itself is interesting enough, but it is not the one we should be having.

Why need government sanction marriages? First consider the functions of a marriage. Essentially it constitutes a contract between two consenting individuals concerning ownership of assets and rights of visitation. There is no need for this particular contract to be enforced separately under the moniker of marriage. It may be handled like any other contract in our legal system. Indeed, those choosing to be marriage in a religious/spiritual sense could do so and be free of any legal entanglements. The only potentially troublesome aspect of this view of marriage comes as a result of the complete ineptitude of the income tax code. The federal income tax disgusts me on many levels. It should not exist. If it is to exist however, it certainly should not be a means of providing incentives or disincentives for particular behaviors the government is fond of at the time of its writing. Quite simply, remove the income tax or remove this particular moronic provision of the code, and we may safely move forward with “private” marriages.

How would the two most prevalent sides of our marriage debate react to this?

Religious people should not be troubled by this. Surely, government sanctioning of marriage should be completely irrelevant, as the sacrament of marriage is a bond between man and wife witnessed by God. Government approval should be completely foreign to the equation. In fact, the religious should be insulted that government claims some stake in marriage. Government cannot oppose God, nor can it bend his will. Any attempt for it to do so should be seen as an affront to its true nature.

Homosexuals, polygamists, and the incestful should rejoice. They would be free to enter into the same contracts as heterosexual, monogamous, unrelated couples. Since no marriages at all would be of interest to government, there would be complete marriage equality under the law. The ugly age of marriage exclusion in the United States would end.

In reality I doubt the scenario would play out as ideally as it would in a rational world. Statism runs deep. The religious in particular are guilty of using the government for their whims. Having their conception of marriage exist is not enough for some religious folk. It must be the only such option. The desire to dominate all too often intertwines itself with creeds that preach submission to a higher power. Throughout history religions have allied with government to swell their numbers and spread their accepted behaviors. Those in favor of non-standard marriage would also likely reject this. Marriage as a government institution is sacrosanct. People have a sick need for government to validate their choices.

The current system is disgusting. Government has no authority to sanction marriage. It’s just a further example of the undeniable tendency of government to spread its insidious grasp over the daily minutia of our lives. It’s insulting. It’s degrading. It stifles basic freedoms. The solution to the tired, biased debates on the subject sits easily and immediately right in front of us with the change costing us nothing. However, as happens constantly, it will never even be discussed by our politicians. Anyone suggesting it would be laughed at as a nut or feared as a radical. It’s a shame. As long as government holds its ground, no side of the debate will be happy.