Marriage

I don't know what it is about Bill Maher that makes me come write a blog post every time I see him. Perhaps its his total hate for average Americans. The man is just incredibly hateful and disrespectful to middle class people, white people, people of faith...it's really disgusting. I have just been watching his show "I'm Swiss" ... ostensibly a standup comedy routine (at least Bill and the people were all laughing at everything that came out of his mouth, not that it was funny).

I didn't watch it because it was good or funny or truthful or anything...I occasionally like to watch political commentary I don't agree with in just a general questioning mode: Is what I believe really true? Do these guys have any good ideas?

More often than not I get so boiling mad angry at the complete idiocy and hypocrisy expressed in these programs that I want to throw my remote at the TV and shatter the the idiot's face. So far the fact that I can't afford a new TV has thwarted this desire, but I don't know for how long.

Anyway, part of Maher's program was about the ever-popular gay marriage topic. One of his themes throughout the program was that government shouldn't make laws legislating taste, and since sexual orientation is a matter of taste, we shouldn't make laws outlawing homosexual marriage.

That was one of the lines that almost sent the remote flying. Bill, homosexual marriage has ALWAYS been illegal. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals and their sympathizers are trying to force their opinions on everyone else by changing the definition of marriage.

Gay marriage activists and supporters don't understand the fact that changing the definition of marriage will have an effect on heterosexual married couples. When we entered into our marriage, we vowed to love and honor each other till death do us part. The implication is that our marriage is a lifelong commitment, a foundation to build our lives on together. I don't know about anyone else, but when that foundation changes, shifts, means something else than it did, it symbolically shakes our whole concept of marriage. We're married, but that doesn't mean the same thing it did when we got married. On some level, we are now linked with homosexuals through the institution of marriage, and we'd rather we could keep the meaning of marriage the way it was when we got married, thank you very much.

I believe the only way for the U.S. government to rectify the situation equitably is to simply get out of the marriage business. There should no longer be any such thing as marriage licenses. People who decide to marry should find themselves an authority figure willing to perform the ceremony for them. The secular law should take no notice of marriage whatsoever. Religious leaders, ship captains, DAs, judges, company presidents, parents, even the couple themselves would be able to perform the marriage ceremony, if willing, minus the words "by the power vested in me by the State of (whatever)." The ceremony would then have whatever significance it derives from those involved.

The advantage to this system is that I can belong to an organization (a church or whatever) that has its own definition of marriage and be able to trust (hopefully) that all marriages performed by that organization will mean the same thing as my marriage. I can choose in my own mind whether to accept other peoples' marriages without legally affecting them.

Legally, spouses could apply for a fiscal partnership, as if they were starting a business, or even incorporate their marriage. Everything money-related would be handled along the lines of those two legal frameworks.

Blood parents would be held equally legally responsible for children. Marriage would imply no legal intrinsic responsibility for or custody of children.

I would imagine that this system would be agreeable to everyone except extreme conservatives who might argue that marriage has traditionally been a government sanctioned institution and removing that sanction is changing marriage as much or more than allowing homosexuals to legally marry.

That may be true, actually, but the important thing about marriage to me is that it's a vow between me, my wife, and my God. It's not important to me whether the state sanctions it or not.

Left-wingers would, I imagine, approve of this idea because it further separates church and state - they are free to their entirely secular marriage or even a marriage of vows between individuals with no presiding authority, whatever they want to do and call a marriage.

The bottom line, I guess, is that government involvement "sanitizes" marriage into a tasteless pablum. Weddings and marriages follow a set format that is legislated. In my system, many of the limitations on marriage would be removed - people can find someone to perform almost any kind of ceremony. No longer would ceremonies be regulated, but acts would be regulated. The acts of pedophilia, incest, rape, bestiality, perhaps sodomy (depending on the state, I guess), etc. would be regulated, not the ceremony of marriage.