Marriage is often considered to be a historically religious institution. Though the truth of this claim is debatable, marriage in most cultures today is closely linked with religious ceremony. It is no surprise, then, that the topic of marriage in our society has become embroiled in hot controversy, as is almost any other instance of government involvement in a religious issue (or vice versa). We live in a country that proclaims the separation of church and state, but indeed endows churches (et cetera) with governmental authority by allowing priests (et cetera) to preside over a ceremony that legally binds two people in an effective civil union which is associated with a long list of local, state, and federal benefits and consequences.
Yes, socially, marriage is often a religious institution. But ours, even on the state level, is a constitutionally dictated, secular government. The two, then, are completely incompatible. The only reasonable solution is to separate the institution of marriage from government entirely. Leave marriage to the churches and priests. This solution should be preferable to all religious groups. This change can only increase and strengthen what the religious call the sanctity of marriage. If a religion dictates that marriage is to be life-long, so be it: The government will no longer be permitted to mar this life-long commitment with civil divorce proceedings. Churches will be allowed to recognize the union of whichever parties they see fit, be they heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, or so forth.
So what, then, should replace marriage as it exists as a civil institution? It must first be decided if such a civil institution is necessary at all. Marriage as a civil institution today confers such benefits as tax conveniences, next of kin rights, joint adoption rights, joint insurance policies, and so on. All told, the list of federal and state rights associated with marriage numbers over 1,400. That number alone indicates that the institution of marriage in this country is probably somewhat bloated. I will not, however, argue here for or against the merits of any of these rights. Instead, I will just describe the mechanism by which these rights should be conferred, if it is decided that any at all should be.
The solution, really, is simplistic to the point of being anticlimactic. The government—be it state, federal, or local—should grant a civil union (or whatever other name is chosen for the institution) to any two consenting adults who apply for it. This civil union will be the only one recognized by any government for any legal purposes; that is, the various religious unions will afford a couple no legal benefits. This complete separation of religious marriage from the associated government-sanctioned union is the only way to preserve both the sanctity of the former and to ensure justice and equality in the latter.
Editor’s Note: “Liberal Bias,” “From the Elephant’s Peanut Gallery,” and “The Latent Spark” are opinion columns granted by the Editorial Board to the Progressive Student Alliance, College Republicans, and College Libertarians and rotate triweekly.
