Nathaniel

Shockey

Read Nathaniel's bio and previous columns here

May 23, 2008

Gay Marriage Policy? How About No Marriage Policy?

In a Republican presidential debate a year ago, Rudy Giuliani was asked if the day Roe v. Wade were overturned would be a good day for America.

He said, “It’d be OK.”

That was one of my favorite responses ever to a political question. The point was that while he strongly disagrees with abortion, he’s not convinced legal restrictions are the solution. It was probably one of the reasons he got slaughtered in the Republican race, but I couldn’t help but admire and even revere both his candor and his opinion. It’s what some of us refer to as ballsy, to accept that some issues aren’t black and white.

Governmental interference only really works as far as the society’s moral spectrum will allow. But considering Amsterdam, for example, we have to ask ourselves if there are some moral standards that deserve a place in the Constitution. No matter how bonkers the general public becomes, our Constitution can, at the very least, make it difficult for them to destroy their own lives and the lives around them.

This consequential debate surfaced in full force when the California Supreme Court recently legislated that same-sex couples can legally marry.

Question #1: Would the day the Supreme Court passed a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples be a good day for America?

I’ll do my best impression of America’s Mayor and say that it’d be OK.

Every issue has layers, both moral and practical. Even though I’m a Bible-believing Christian, I’d never try legislating based upon my best interpretation of scripture. People have different, changing beliefs, which is why theocracies don’t work. While the Supreme Court’s ruling saddened me because it reflected the general secularization of America, the larger issue is that the government too often refuses to get out of the way.

What we must realize is that a country must work harder to agree politically than morally. That’s the difference between a theocracy and a democracy.

This is why the second question ought to be more relevant that the first.

Question #2: Should marriage require governmental interference? I don’t think so. This is not so much because I question the importance of maintaining the natural family structure, which I believe determines the general strength and integrity of a population in general. But the strength of the American nuclear family does not, or at least should not, rely on how specifically or morally the U.S. Constitution is crafted.

Legally, marriage affects people in two primary ways: taxes and adoption. For starters, taxes should have little, if anything, to do with marriage, which they wouldn’t if we could finally implement an infinitely simpler and more practical flat tax.

Concerning adoption, the laws are already extremely rigid and complex from state to state. The courts might as well continue to handle adoption on a case-by-case basis. And if this means that same-sex couples could potentially raise children, there are a lot of children who would have a better chance at life with two loving daddies than a considerably more scarring alternative.

That’s really about it. Granted, there are always practical consequences to changing the laws, but if the changes are good, people adapt.

Remember the bar scene when a guy with gel in his hair is bothering a girl, and a handsomer guy with carefully groomed “messy” hair steps in and tells the him to leave her alone? The first guy says, “This is none of your business, buddy,” and the second guy responds, “Well I’m making it my business.”

Well imagine if that guy with the messy hair started popping up everywhere. You’re walking your dog and when you neglect to clean up its poop, the bar guy jumps out from behind a bush and says, “I’m making this my business. Here’s a plastic bag and a shovel. Clean it up.” Or you’re crossing the street, you’re in a hurry, and he steps out of a Toyota and says, “I’m making this my business. Crosswalk’s over there, pal.”

At some point, we just want the guy to leave us alone.

Personally, marriage is between me, my wife and God. That’s how it is for most of us, actually, which is why so many people are married in a church. But if you really believe some random guy in Vegas gets the job done, more power to you.

I can’t think of many instances where the concept of separating church and state seems more relevant than marriage. It’s a religious issue, not a legal one. And even though one could find practical reasons for the government to interfere in almost every instance in life, this doesn’t negate the fact that people are almost always better off when the responsibility is their own.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # NS113. Request permission to publish here.