On The Role of Civil Authorities In Marriage

Before diving headfirst into this shallow pool of political controversy, I want to clarify something. The terms of this discussion (per our cross-blog effort) limit this to a civil context. So what, after all, is marriage in the civil context? When you remove the personal meaning, you lose the commitment and love between two individuals. When you next remove the religious meaning, you lose the status as a "blessed union", and the role of a religious group in performing a wedding. After all that, you are left with an agreement between two individuals to cohabitate and share resources. In the eyes of the government, that's all it is at the core: two people living together and looking after one another.

The question is, does the government have the right to sanction (or not sanction) such unions? Yes and no. The government has the "right" to do what we want it to do, to perform what roles we deem appropriate. It's role, at least in an ideal world, is to service us, the citizenry. If we see it valuable to have the government act as a 3rd party which authorizes a special legal status, then by that rationale, it does have the right.

Naturally, the government does not have the right to deny people from interacting, or having sex, or cohabitation, as long as it's within the bounds of what is currently considered legal behavior. Obviously, convicted pedophiles are forbidden to associate with children. And in times past, homosexual behavior was forbidden in some places. All of that is constantly changing, based on what society deems to be criminal behavior. And that's neither here nor there.

If two men, living in a state which does not allow same sex unions, wish to live together, commit to one another, and have a ceremony in a participating church, the government (to my knowledge) would have nothing to say about such an arrangement. However, those men would not enjoy the privileges of a legally recognized union. Those privileges - such as enjoying a special tax status, and being able to visit one another in emergency medical situations, and make legal decisions for their partner - are no small thing. So, if we're viewing this as a strictly civil matter, I see no reason to deny any couple from seeking the recognition. Or alternatively, remove the legal status altogether and make every individual of equal status, leaving unions strictly in the realm of the personal and religious. Either would be fine.

I can see the slippery-slope objection as being: "if any couple can get a civil union, why not three people, or four? Or a man and a dog?". Well, I can't really think of a good reason to object to 3 people being married. The nature of the relationship is somewhat different, but any argument based on "well, it's so psychologically different and special when it's one-on-one" is pretty weak and highly subjective. So, share the flesh baby, and bring on 3-way marriages. To take it a step further, I see no reason why two 50 year old bachelors who have only a platonic love between them could not get a union. If they wish to commit to constant support and cohabitation, why shouldn't they be allowed special privileges in a hospital, or special status in a census? A human to animal union is another story, I think. Animals have no legal status. They also cannot give consent. It would be the same as a man wishing to marry a baby, or a person with critical mental disabilities (i.e. a vegetable).

So, that's all pretty loosey goosie. But that's the nature of civil authority. It bends and changes. However, looking at this with the eyes of an engineer, I firmly believe that it would be best to drop the civil recognition of unions all together. The reason marriages were recognized by the government in the first place was to designate a household, or a family. Since Women's Suffrage, we view legal status as something belonging to citizens who are above the age of consent. It wasn't always that way, though.

Voting was seen as something done on the basis of a household, and the authority of that household was granted to the man of the house. Society was arranged in that manner. Men approaching adulthood found a wife and started their own household. In Greece and Rome, citizenship was exclusively held by the male heads of households. As an interesting aside, plebeian men had no legal standing (to write contracts or take people to court) on their own, they needed a patrician patron to act as their intercessor. The tradition of organizing society by household in civil matters extended onto Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and eventually to the USA. Marriage was the legal device which made that arrangement work.

That's fine, but it doesn't really work that way anymore. We're no longer a society of men and their subservient families, we're a society of individuals. Our values are such that we can live with whoever we choose, in whatever arrangement we see fit. So, looking at it as a matter of design principles, why constantly scramble to update the law to culture? It would be cleaner, simpler, more consistent and more elegant - not to mention philosophically correct - to focus on the status as a free individual, and leave social arrangements in the realm of the personal.