Redefining Marriage

California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, passed with 52% of the vote. The demographics show a clean split between the urban coastal areas that opposed the measure and the more rural interior areas that supported it, but at the end of the day the bluest of the blue states had voted to override a California Supreme Court decision that had previously recognized gay marriage in the state.

Protestors immediately took to the streets, vowing to overturn the results one way or the other. Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC reporter who wins my vote for “News Anchor Most Likely to Climb a Tower with an Automatic Weapon,” delivered an emotional editorial on the November 10th episode of “Countdown” saying,

“…to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and
this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds
corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and
marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law
that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967. The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people.

It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery.
Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves
were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child.
Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until
Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally
recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.”

Normally I can’t stand Olbermann, but in this case I find myself agreeing with his main point. I have friends who are gay, and I certainly understand their desire to have their relationship recognized in the same way as heterosexual marriages, along with all of the legal rights and privileges that derive from that recognition.

Nevertheless, I think both sides of the gay marriage debate miss a fundamental point. The real question is not whether government should recognize gay marriage. The real question is “Why does anyone – gay or straight – have to ask government for permission to marry at all?”

When I proposed to my wife, the only two people in the world whose permission I felt I needed were my wife and her father. But for some reason, our marriage hinged on getting a license from some low-level bureaucrat in Lincoln County, Mississippi. Why? Because at some point in history, some genius decided that it would be a good idea to take a social institution that had existed since the dawn of human history and turn it over to government. Government involvement in defining marriage began in the United States in the 19th century as a way to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Although the original racist justification for a government-granted marriage privilege has long since been obliterated, the legitimacy of government involvement in the area of marriage remains unquestioned by all but a few.

Let’s imagine some lucky guy has just slipped an engagement ring on his fiancee’s finger. The happy couple then announce the news to their friends. Before their friends can congratulate them, though, they have to take a vote on whether they will allow the marriage to take place or not.

“OK guys, show of hands. Who here wants Bob and Sue to get married? OK, now how many oppose? I see. Bad news, guys. We all voted, and I’m afraid we just can’t allow this wedding to go forward. Sorry.” Would anyone allow themselves to be subjected to majority rule in that case? Of course not. But that is exactly what happened as soon as the state was granted a role in marriage. Americans imposed a public aspect over what should have been an exclusively private matter.

Proposition 8 is another illustration of the folly of turning to government to define, legitimize, or involve itself in any way with marriage. By allowing government to either recognize or restrict gay marriage, we further confirm the legitimacy of the state’s involvement in straight marriage as well.

A basic understanding of Lockean natural rights would go a long way in preventing these kinds of issues from ever becoming political battles in the first place. It would enable us to draw bright lines around those areas of life that should never be subject to majority rule. In the context of the current marriage debate, the result would be that the original definition of marriage would be restored. Marriage would once again be an exclusively personal decision between people who loved each other, sanctified by their own religious, familial, or cultural norms. The role of the state would be limited to enforcing the terms of the marriage contract, whatever they might be.

At first blush, one might expect this approach to be embraced by proponents of gay marriage, such as Keith Olbermann. But accepting the notion that many, if not most, aspects of life should remain outside the sphere of state control would undercut his big-government worldview. Somehow I doubt that his concern for the rights of gays runs so deep as to allow such a heretical thought to cross his mind.

So until Olbermann and other big-government supporters are willing to consider these fundamental questions, they’ll just have to live with the occasional disappointments that are the inevitable result of majority rule. Sometimes they’ll get their way, sometimes they won’t. The only things for certain are that the conflicts will be never-ending, and that the security of fundamental individual rights will always be subject to the whims of the electorate.