A Marital Proposal

Marriage is a big deal.

I grant that that is a rather inelegant expression but, in its simplicity, sufficiently conveys the seriousness of marriage.

Marriage is a big deal.

Marriage is a contract.

Modern culture is thoroughly infused with Hollywood projections of romance, love and marriage. Outside of the theater, however, marriage in practical terms is a contract, forming a partnership, with all the common and necessary elements of a contract.

Currently, marriage is a contract which may only be consummated between two people - one male, one female - who are competent, of legal age, and not under duress.

The restriction as to the sex of the entrants is the source of a raging controversy throughout the nation.

Some of the states have legalized same-sex unions in some form; some have pre-empted the same with initiatives and/or amendments to the state constitutions defining or limiting marriage; most states are caught in the middle without the ability to move much in either direction.

Regardless of how the argument is parsed from either side, the same-sex marriage debate boils down to a conflict between the one group's concept of moral behavior versus the other group's belief they are being denied equality.

I suggest that there is another approach to this issue which is consistent with the philosophy of the opponents and will satisfy the need of the proponents for equal standing.

My proposition is that all regulation of marriage be removed from the purview of government - at all levels - and returned to the people where it belongs; and that the marriage license be replaced by a simple document, including all of the necessary provisions about rights, property, powers-of-attorney, etc., as is needed - the form and content to evolve and improve through use and experience. The restrictions on eligibility to file this document would include the usual limits on contracts such as competency, majority, no compulsion, no illegal acts, and so on.

There could even be an expiration or renewal date if desired.

So how does this benefit each group?

Those who oppose same-sex marriage, as stated above, generally use moral/religious bases for their opposition. These same people are generally opposed to government interference in religion.

This change would successfully remove an element of religious belief from any control of any government - thus giving them more religious freedom and preventing the feared change in the definition of marriage.

Similarly, for the proponents of same-sex marriage, they gain what they claim to desire most of all: equality. The partnership filings will be indifferent to the sex of the partners. Additionally, if there is a need for religious solemnization, no doubt there will be many ministers willing to aid - and without the concerns of running afoul of the law in some way.

Additionally, there will be some pleasant side benefits to the whole nation:

1. This divisive and unproductive debate will end.

2. Divorce Court will cease to exist. Partnership agreements will expire or be dissolved like any other contractual arrangement.

3. The power, influence and control of government will decrease - a positive effect in any regard.

I don't deny that there will need to be some more fleshing out of this bare-bones proposal, but I believe the outcome can be a win-win for all of us.

Truth?

Everyone I know says they want the truth - at least among those who actually give a thought to much at all.

I seriously question whether or not few if any really mean that they want to find the truth, because the truth is apparent and obvious everywhere around us. The whole world, and the people who populate it, shove the truth in our faces every waking moment.

In the words of Hobbes: "...nasty and brutish...."

No, I don't think we want truth. What we want is a way up or a way out.

In other words, we want to avoid consequences - and still reap the rewards.

Look how much of our time is consumed by the mundane. We worry about bills and money and possessions and money and status and money...and who among us are the most obsessed with the trappings of materiality: the poor.

Why?

Because that is the game.

From the time we are very small we learn to desire and to desire what others have. Capitalism is the economic expression of these inculcated wants.

But don't be fooled - capitalism is not synonymous with free enterprise. Capitalism is a zero-sum game. Capitalism is based on the premise that the resources of the world are finite and, because the sum is of a fixed quantity, the object is to acquire as many of these resources as possible (and never forget we, the people, are one of these resources).

In every nation, every person, to one extent or another, is expected to participate in the game.

There's a problem, however, because what is left out of the training is that the rules of the game are rigged and the outcomes fixed.

You can't win!

So, is there another option?

Yes: Don't play!