[Gelato]

The question of marriage is by no means an easy one to tackle, and in the debate so far, quite a few issues have been raised. Nevertheless, it appears the kernel of the controversy can be distilled into this one question: “On what basis can society justify involving itself, through government, in marriage--and to what extent is that involvement necessary?”

Of all the relationships a person can enter into, it seems odd that government involves itself in this, the most intimate of relationships. Should this be the case? Do we really need governmental sanction for the union between man and wife? What of gay marriage or other alternatives? Would this matter be best resolved by removing marriage from the government’s business altogether? Since marriage is a religious concept, why not leave it entirely up to churches?

To answer that, let’s take a look at what the result would be if marriage abode by the laissez-faire, libertarian principle. What would happen if the government left marriage alone?

Obviously, gay marriage would instantly become legal across the board. In fact, ALL forms of marriage would become legal. Polygamist marriages, consensual incestuous marriages, same-sex marriages, bisexual-polygamist marriages--even child marriages would be permitted by the state.

Put this proposition to the American people, and the first question they would ask would be: “Even child marriages?” To that, we’d have to answer: “Well, yes. We forbade the government from touching this issue anymore, remember? Government can’t get involved. We left it up to the churches--and there’s a separation of church and state, don’t ya know?”

This will not be an acceptable answer to 99.99% of the American public. They will demand immediately that government get involved and put an age limit on marriage.

And there you have it. With that, marriage moves from a religious principle untouched by the state, to a societal one with governmental supervision. Marriage becomes a state interest.

Before we get that far in the argument, let’s ask whether majority opinion is supreme in this matter. Can the 99.99% majority overrule that .01% of the American population who wants child marriages?

Don’t say, “No one wants marriage rights for children.” 18-year-old men are often jailed for statutory rape, even when it was “consensual.” A recent “consensual” case discussed on The O’Reilly Factor involved a 12-year-old girl in a relationship with a man in his early 20’s. Girls as young as 11 and 12 years old have had abortions. Attempted marriage with underage girls has been reported in the U.S.: this year, a polygamist man was sentenced for marrying his 15-year-old cousin (who also happens to be his aunt).

There are countries with no laws against child marriages, and in some cases, underage marriage is the rule, not the exception. The majority of girls in Afghanistan are married before they become adults--some while still elementary school age. In Nepal, 40% of girls are married by the age of 15, and 7% before they are 10. The Republic of the Congo has a 74% child marriage rate.

Some child marriages exist for religious reasons. The Hindu religion, for example, includes the marriage of children. In the U.S, we see the case of some polygamist religions having attempted it. Given the reality of immigration and non-traditional religious sects in America, perhaps the number of those wanting no marriage age limit is larger than we might estimate.

But for the purpose of this discussion, an actual figure isn’t necessary. We will assume the number is the minority.

Which brings us back to the question: can the majority demand that the government prevent the marriages of this minority? I believe the answer is YES.

If you also accept this premise, that means you accept the idea that society can rightfully regulate, through the government, its own moral ideas of marriage, despite the views of a the minority--and even when the minority’s view is based on what seems to be a noble principle like religion or ethics. Here is the dividing line.

Do you accept this premise, when it comes to governmentally-imposed age limits? Your answer will determine the next step in this discussion.

Discussion to be continued . . .

[Mathlete]

Thanks for the response, and sorry for the delay.

“On what basis can society justify involving itself, through government, in marriage--and to what extent is that involvement necessary?”
Do we really need governmental sanction for the union between man and wife? What of gay marriage or other alternatives? Would this matter be best resolved by removing marriage from the government’s business altogether? Since marriage is a religious concept, why not leave it entirely up to churches?

Certainly this country was founded by a religious population (mainly Protestant) but the forefathers were smart enough to realize that Protestantism was invented (rebelliously) because religion was tightly coupled with government politics (namely European), and consequently wrote provisions in the U.S. Constitution to keep the two separated. However, removing religion from the government did not destroy the purpose of the government--only limit it. Government still functions to promote the general welfare of the people (un-religiously), define and enforce law (un-religiously), and secure Liberty to its citizens. 

To answer that, let’s take a look at what the result would be if marriage abode by the laissez-faire, libertarian principle. What would happen if the government left marriage alone? Obviously, gay marriage would instantly become legal across the board. In fact, ALL forms of marriage would become legal. Polygamist marriages, consensual incestuous marriages, same-sex marriages, bisexual-polygamist marriages--even child marriages would be permitted by the state.

I agree. Government should be involved with marriage -- for legal matters. So should churches, family, friends, ..., everyone you can muster up that has a vested interest in marriage. The more the merrier. But some people just go to Las Vegas, file for marriage online, or just let Common Law kick in. After marriage, the government is just a party that is supposed to be unbiased when vows are broken. But everyone gets involved because its a lot easier to keep your vows (a kind of psychological protection or insurance) when you realize that it's not just a promise to your spouse, but also a promise to everyone else around you that you value, such as family, friends, workers, and if you wish, God, priests, et al. For my marriage, I've also included myself as part of the promise I made.

Put this proposition to the American people, and the first question they would ask would be: “Even child marriages?” To that, we’d have to answer: “Well, yes. We forbade the government from touching this issue anymore, remember? Government can’t get involved. We left it up to the churches--and there’s a separation of church and state, don’t ya know?” This will not be an acceptable answer to 99.99% of the American public. They will demand immediately that government get involved and put an age limit on marriage. And there you have it. With that, marriage moves from a religious principle untouched by the state, to a societal one with governmental supervision. Marriage becomes a state interest.

Again, I agree. Government should be involved in marriage; especially to prevent child marriages, and polygamy, which I assume exists for legal simplification (or logistics) of divorce, dispute settling, and filing joint taxes.

So I believe that the real purpose of marriage, historically, is to sanction sex by society -- not to promote children -- that side effect is an implied probability. Our conservative Catholic history originally defined marriage as "the only legal permission for having sex." You pretty much got one shot at it with one person, with the exception of death. Any violation of this rule was subject to the most harsh punishments--humiliation, excommunication, banishment, imprisonment, and often death. Later, annulment was invented for marketing purposes. Soon after, the Protestants discovered that they couldn't commit to a single person for a lifetime, and decided split off and change the religion (well, invent a new flavor) that kept all the previous tenets of marriage, but changed the implied meaning of till death do you part   to   till one of you decides to publicly call the whole thing off. The words in the vows remained unchanged, but the meaning changed. Marriage was still a sanction for sex. You were not allowed to have premarital sex, or allowed to have sex with someone that you were not legally given permission. 

Today, modern countries have separated the laws for legal sex from the laws for legal marriage. I have yet to find a country in which the legal age for marriage does not match the legal age for sex. In the USA, its 18. Here are some modern US laws that prohibit sex: * you cannot have sex if you are under 18 * you cannot charge money for sex *  if you are married and you have sex with someone other than your spouse and your spouse complains, your spouse can punish with divorce most economically in his or her favor. You see, we've gotten quite lax with our laws about sex. But the government gives other benefits for marriage. Your spouse has implied Power of Attorney, without having to visit a lawyer. If one dies, or is hospitalized, the other gets to make tricky decisions, inherit wealth and property, assume tax benefits, and continue getting retirement funds. None of this has anything explicitly to do with sex. It's all about property ownership. Some old couples get married just so one spouse can inherit tax-free and assume retirement funds. Children are another reason for marriage -- not solely to create them, but to have guardianship over them. The surviving spouse gets the children, regardless of whether the children are his or hers.

Do you accept this premise, when it comes to governmentally-imposed age limits?

Yes. But I think the big point that I was trying to make in this entire debate was that (1) Alan Keyes was trying very hard to convince me that marriage was all about children, and I could name many reasons (in previous posts) why this is not just the case, (2) I don't believe that it is right for the government today to discriminate against one's sexual preference in defining today's usage (not ancient definitions) of marriage, providing that two gay couples are in all other respects legally allowed to marry; i.e. at legal age, not already married, etc. I drive this point home by pointing out that today gays legally can * adopt children * get Power of Attorney * have sex with each other * kiss in public * hold hands in public * have television shows dedicated to their gayness * publicly announce that they are gay * sue companies and the military for discriminating against them, etc. (3) The government already promotes and subsidizes children by giving legal guardians tax benefits (and welfare) based on the number of children they have, and not on whether the parent is single, or married, or gay, etc. It is this point that George Bush (who I love) will never get a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as proposed.

In lieu of all these facts, common practices, and society mores, I find the argument against gay marriage hypocritical at least. Personally, no one else's marriage threatens my marriage. Mine is covenant with God and is therefore immune to all this fluff. If it were not, then certainly the concept of legal divorce would be a million times more threatening to my marriage than the concept of gay marriage.

I'm interested in where your line of reasoning will continue now that I have answered your questions. Your turn...