Take Government out of the Marriage Business

The tsunami of Kim Davis/gay marriage/religious freedom news has created a wake of outrage that everyone seems to have a strong opinion on, one way or the other.  The question much less asked isn't whether gays should be able to marry and have those marriages legally recognized, nor is it the role of religious freedom for conservative Christians working in government, though the latter is an interesting question.  Nope, the question almost no one is asking is why the government is in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all?

The concept of licensing marriages has been a long debated issue in American politics.  Generally, as is the case with most licenses, government-issued marriage licenses have always been used to control access to the institution. As late as the mid-20th century, there were still laws against interracial marriage, even going so far that some states required a blood test before a license would be given! Though those laws have since been abolished and ruled unconstitutional, there remained the ability of the government to limit the access of marriage rights of other groups of people as they saw fit, namely homosexuals.

But all that has since changed and the door has been flung wide open.

Once the Supreme Court ruled that gays could no longer be discriminated against under Section 1 of the 14th amendment, the rules have changed and those who cling to their religious beliefs aren't giving up quietly.  See Kim Davis, for example.

On one hand I can understand the government's role in certifying marriages.  A marriage is not just a relationship between two individuals who've exchanged vows and share a common bond. Likewise, a marriage is also not just a religious institution. A marriage also has both implied and tangible rights for the parties involved.  Inheritance, child care, tax and financial issues all are affected by a legal certificate of marriage.  And if I know anything at all, it's that if there is a revenue stream to be found, the government will exploit it for all it's worth.

On the other hand, I would argue that marriage isn't a privilege for the government, in their infinite wisdom, to dole out to those they find deserving, but a right for all free citizens.  As such, the government should have no more a hand in regulating marriage as they should have in any other private contract between two parties.  Marriage may have become a confusing subject in contemporary American society, but, thankfully, contract law is not. 

Rand Paul, the Kentucky Senator and Republican presidential candidate, in an interview with CNN said, "forcing conservative Christians to issue marriage licensees to same-sex couples is going to backfire. What's going to happen is it's going to harden people's resolve on this issue," he said.

Rand Paul is a man I admire, and though I don't share his particularly conservative views on certain social issues (gay marriage, abortion) his libertarian stances on many issues make him probably the best the Republicans have to offer (albeit, it is a very short bar to jump).

That said, Paul continued, "I think what's going to happen is that state and localities are just going to opt out of the marriage business."

Well, Senator Paul, one can only hope...

--Ray--