State-sanctioned marriage - is that really what we want?

Conservatives are funny people. One of their most prolific claims to fame is that they oppose big government, socialism in any form, and any intrusion on the privacy of the average American. Or so they claim...

But the truth is, they only oppose those things when it benefits them (as in not providing government benefits to the poor, preventing a national health care program that would cover all Americans, etc.). Mostly their opposition coincides with their estimation of what such government-run programs might cost them in taxes (which is usually much higher than what the reality would be).

However, they don't complain when the government intrudes on one of our most highly valued rights of passage - marriage. In fact, they actually advocate for stricter government regulation of what should be a very private and personal choice made by the individual, without government influence or oversight.

In Monday's NY Times, Stephanie Coontz writes an interesting review of the history of marriage regulation, and shows quite clearly that in today's world, a marriage license can no longer be used as a yardstick for determining one's duties and responsibilities, familial connections, or financial obligations.

I agree completely with Ms. Coontz's stance on this issue. Marriage should be a matter of personal choice, and should be based solely on the couple's level of affection, commitment, and willingness to share a life together. No one should need a "license" to marry, which is tantamount to having to ask for the government's permission to spend your life with the person of your choice.

Rather than having to apply for a license prior to marriage, couples should be able to register their union with the local government AFTER they have taken their vows. In this manner, there is a legal recording of the marriage (and all its obligations) and a method to ensure that neither party is a minor child or close blood relative - but without anyone having to ask the state's "permission" to get married in the first place.

This would, of course, effectively end the debate over same-sex marriage, as couples (regardless of gender) would not have to have a license to get married. And that would not be very palatable to the conservatives, who apparently don't mind the government sticking it's nose into our private lives, as long as it serves their political agenda.

**Note: This article first appeared at: http://themindofmoe.typepad.com/moes_musings/

Sphere: Related Content

A culture of hate

There are times when it's not the news itself that grabs my attention, but rather the reactions to it that are written by others. Such was the case today when I read this story on AOL...

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/suv-plunges-into-canal-killing-seven/20071119065709990001

It's the story of a group of people - human beings, including several young children - who died when an SUV plunged off the road and into a canal in California. It's a tragic story of lives lost and a reminder about protecting ourselves and our kids with car seats and seat belts.

That should be the end of the story, except for the families who must now deal with the loss of loved ones.

But what grabbed my attention was not so much the story as the comments written in response to the story by the readers. Because those in the car had Hispanic surnames, it appears that many readers are assuming the occupants were illegal aliens. Making that assumption, when the article never mentions the immigration status of any of the victims, is proof that far too many people are using immigration status as a way of promoting prejudice. But it goes deeper than that, as you can see in the following comment posted by one responder (I hate giving this comment space here, but to prevent my readers from having to scroll through 50 pages of comments to find it, I will copy it for you)...

uneedsome2day 02:06:12 PM Nov 19 2007

Look perhaps some people cant read! In intitial post, it was stated that There was remorse for loss of life! However, if these people - KEY IF - were illegals then its ok! We dont need more mouth to feed in this country! Unless of course they are LEGAL LAW ABIDING RESIDENTS who have been born in or allowed to reside here legally! Does that make more sense. I simply stated that 7 people would equal 49 cause each could have 7 kids. And if one takes 49 X 7 that should equal 343 less Illegals this United States Government would have to support! Its that simple! how is this prejudice or biggot remark I dont get it?I simply made an observation of facts. Likewise if they were all legals then my heart goes out to them and their families for their loss! TU COMPRENDES Nosotros?


What the hell is wrong with this person?
Since when does someone have to have a green card in order to have the right to exist?
Since when is the death of a child - much less several children - NOT a tragedy?

How can anyone so easily write off 7 human lives without a moment of regret or even a kind word for their grieving families just because the victims MIGHT not have been legal immigrants (and there's no proof of that anyway)? This person doesn't even seem to have any sympathy or compassion for the children who, regardless of their immigration status, had no more choice about where they live (legally or not) than they did about being in that car.

It is this kind of behavior that I refer to in the title above. What is worse is that it is our own government - beginning with Bush himself - that has encouraged this kind of hatred, prejudice, and divisiveness. The hatred being spewed against immigrants (legal or not) has been all but encouraged by the Bush administration and Republicans in general. The same is true in regard to the other groups for whom hatred and bigotry are accepted, such as gays, Muslims, the poor, etc.

Why? Because it gives American's someone to blame for the dire straights our leaders have put us in, and turns our attention away from the more serious problems facing our nation - like the war, the healthcare crisis, global warming, gas prices and the economy, homelessness, dwindling natural resources, the disintegration of much of our infrastructure, etc.

Instead of focusing our attention on our elected officials and demanding they stop pandering to special interests and do the job we hired them for, we are allowing them to manipulate us into blaming the problems in our society on illegal immigration, welfare, sexual orientation or religious affliation, nationality, and even smoking. But those are not the real causes of our problems, just as the small percentage of illegal immigrants living in America are not responsible for unemployment and underemployment. It is not the few jobs that immigrants take (most of which are not wanted by any legal residents because they pay far too little, have no benefits, and demand excessive hours with no paid sick time or vacation) that is hurting the US economy - it's the deals that Congress and the White House made with big business, allowing them to outsource their production to other countries in order to increase their profits at the expense of both quality workmanship and jobs for Americans.

Reading that reply made me sick. It makes me ashamed to think that the person who wrote that reply is an American, and ashamed that anyone in the 21st century can still think that a human life has so little value. I'm ashamed that my fellow Americans are so ignorant and easily manipulated. And I'm ashamed that our government is responsible for it.

When will we learn? When will we wake up? When will we start valuing humanity more than we value money and materialism? When will we realize that the longer we allow ourselves to devalue ANYONE, for ANY reason - the better the chances are that one day, it will be our own lives that someone deems as no great loss, and our own humanity that is considered unworthy of compassion, kindness, or tolerance.

Sphere: Related Content