I Now Pronounce You Husband and Husband?

Same sex couples around the late-great state of California are burning up the phone lines to their wedding planners at the same time as the type is being set on the ballot measure that would prohibit gay marriage. It's an emotional issue where adherents of "traditional values" and proponents of the "sexual (r)evolution" speak at cross purposes.

So let's calm down for just a moment and look at the issue. The first area to explore is the state's rightful place or interest in the institution of marriage. Everyone seems to think that marriage is some glorious union of two loving individuals, and ideally that may be part of what it is, or at least what it has become. But if we accept that romantic view of marriage, what business does the government have in it? I think we would all agree that the government cannot judge how "loving" any couple is. Should the state find some way of testing the love between individuals as it tests knowledge of the vehicle code before it issues driving licenses?

The only legitimate reason the state should be concerned about the institution of marriage is if there is a societal issue at stake that warrants its involvement. The state gets involved in issuing drivers licenses because public safety is at stake. As a driver, I need to be reasonably assured that we all agree on what our behavior behind the wheel will be when we come to red lights. The government doesn't need to issue licenses to operate the remote controls of our television sets. Whether or not I know how to properly use the "MTS/SAP" button on my remote control is of no consequence to society.

With this principle in mind, what is at stake in society to give the government grounds to define and regulate marriage? First and foremost is the continuation of the society itself. The population of any state needs to reproduce itself to survive. This may seem trivial, but it isn't. Currently there are many western nations where the birthrate is below the "replacement" level. Russia is encouraging its youth to have babies. To maintain its place in the world, a country needs a stable population.

Nature has provided the way for society to maintain its population. A man and a woman engage in intercourse. This often results in children. Thousands of years of human history, common sense, and research tell us that the best way to rear these children is through the cooperative efforts of the parents. The government then has a rightful interest in whether or not these procreating couples stay together. When they break apart, the consequences to society are enormous. Therefore, the civil contract we call "marriage" serves to protect all of us. I don't think the government cares one whit about honoring or celebrating the supposed love between the married people.

We also know that by nature the man is more prone to abandon the union, and that, again by nature, the woman is more prone to be left caring for the child. The marriage contract serves to protect the woman who is at something of a "natural" disadvantage with regards to the family situation.

This is where government's "natural" and "rightful" interests end. Any taxation or financial issues do not matter as they only deal with situations the government itself has created. Let's use "inheritance" as an example. Currently in the United States, a spouse gets a bigger break when it comes to estate taxes than a non-family member. But that's only because the government decided to confiscate dead people's property in the first place. Eliminate the estate tax and any fiscal imbalance between married versus non-married individuals disappears. So this is not a "definition or marriage" issue, it's a tax policy issue.

After listening to this debate for some time now, I find it ironic that what the homosexual couples seem to truly desire is to command the same respect, honor, and esteem as married heterosexual couples, which is exactly what the government cannot give them. It is our religious institutions that give couples—through the marriage ceremony—this high level of regard, but I suspect religion plays a rather minor role in the lives of most gay couples.