Lately, people have been arguing over who should be allowed to marry. The debate has started to come to a head with all the amendments trying to limit who can become legally bound together in the eyes of the government.

This has led me to wonder what marriage actually is.

It seems to me, that marriage is a contract binding two people together in the eyes of the law.

But wait, marriage is also a spiritual contract in the eyes of a religious organization.

Many people seem to think that the two contracts are mutually inclusive, but they are not. You can have one without the other. You can be married in the eyes of the law without being married in the eyes of any church or religion. You do not have to have a rabbi, minister or priest sign your state marriage certificate. You can have a judge sign your certificate, thus excluding all religion. On the flip side, most churches have their own contract that a church official signs that has nothing at all to do with the government.

So, what is marriage?

Is marriage a simple contractual obligation between two people that grants them tax breaks and legal possession over each other’s stuff? Or, is it a spiritual bond in the eyes of an institution that is supposed to be 100% separate from our state?

The big problem in this debate, seem to be that no one wants to say what marriage actually is. They want it to encompass both worlds. People are confusing their religious institution with courts of law. If we boil down marriage into what it actually is without any religious connotation to it, you get a contract that grants certain rights to the two people involved. There doesn’t have to be any spiritual bond for two people to get married in the eyes of the law. They can just be two people who want the tax breaks … like a business venture.

Would a government be allowed to pass a law that disallows two people to enter into a business contract with each other simply because of their sex or their race? Of course it wouldn’t. Imagine how difficult mergers would become. “Oh, I’m sorry Bob, we can’t merge our companies. We’re both too Caucasian male for it to be deemed legal in the eyes of contractual law.”

Imagine with me for a moment: “We move to amend the constitution of the State of _____ such that two women may not have dual ownership in any business venture.” “We move to amend the constitution of the State of _____ such that two men owning the same business may not be allowed to file taxes upon said business jointly.” “We move to Amend the constitution of the State of _____ that land may only be jointly owned by two people of differing sexes.”

Or if we want to get really technical: “We move to amend the constitution of the State of ___ such that no house shall be allowed to have pink walls in their master bedroom as it may offend the tastes of those visiting.”

Or, maybe I’ve just missed the point of these would-be laws.

On a side note, I am proud to say that I am from the only State that has refused to pass an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Posted by Utopia at November 15, 2006 12:33 PM

Comments

Posted by: katkat at November 16, 2006 12:07 PM

Posted by: Veronica at December 7, 2006 02:32 PM

Post a comment