Since Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency, all talk of domestic policy has been related to the economy. This is rightfully so, as we continue to slide deeper into a recession. However, there are still other issues Obama must address during his term, including that of gay marriage. For some time now, this issue has been one of America’s more divisive ones, and the passing of Proposition 8 this past fall has only spurred more debate.
One side of this cultural divide calls for a “protection” of the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage, which is supposedly a pure and glorious institution that has served us well for centuries. On the other, people reject this notion as absurd and believe it only a matter of equal rights that homosexuals be able to share in the legal and social aspects that result from marriage. And some, like our president, favor civil unions, which are paraded as a middle road: a union with all the rights of marriage but a different name.
Most of this debate is political and religious hogwash, not to mention historically ignorant. The legality of heterosexual marriage is not a story of purity and love; it is, instead, one of despicable discrimination and a continuous invasion of private matters by both the church and state.
I’ll skip the earlier history of marriage, though it may be interesting, and simply discuss its history in our country. The American colonies did require all marriages to be registered; however, they accepted public cohabitation as evidence of marriage up until the mid-1800s. After this, the state stuck its nose further and further into individuals’ private affairs, restricting something that should have been a personal decision between two individuals with a slew of litigation and court decisions.
In 1873, the Supreme Court ruled that a state can limit a married woman from practicing law. In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, allowing polygamists to be held indefinitely without trial if found living together, even though polygamy is already illegal. In the 1920s, 38 states had laws that prohibited whites from marrying those of other races, including blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and many more. Not until 1965 did the Supreme Court overturn laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception. And finally, in 1967, the same body overturned laws prohibiting interracial marriage. And then, of course, came divorce—but the fact that about 50 percent of marriages today end in divorce does not threaten this lovely institute of heterosexual marriage. No, not at all—but gay people getting hitched does.
Back in the day, marriage licenses had a practical purpose: The government used them as a means of distributing benefits and legal privileges. This made sense, because in the 1950s, most adults were married. Cohabitation, divorces, multiple marriages, single parenthood—these things were rare then. Society has changed, however, and it no longer makes sense to use marriage for this purpose.
As someone that doesn’t like being bossed around by the federal government or anyone else, I think that there’s a fourth avenue to resolve this dispute: Remove marriage’s legal standing altogether. Grant civil unions—with all the legal rights of marriage today—to any couple that wants one, and let couples that want marriage have their unions blessed by a church or other entity. (Churches and other religious organizations, of course, would have the right to bless only those unions they saw fit.) This solution, more than any of the others, is the closest to ensuring “liberty and justice for all.”
