THIS PAST week, Connecticut became the second state, following Vermont, to officially sanction same-sex civil unions. Last year, Massachusetts went all the way and legalized same-sex marriage. As revolutionary as these developments have been, they do not go far enough. Although pitched as a compromise, civil unions are still viewed by gay activists as second-class treatment. On the other hand, same-sex marriage is an abomination to social conservatives. It's time to truly satisfy all sides of the debate by abolishing the government's role in sanctioning any marriage, period.
For a country founded on freedom of religion and individual rights, the government's role in the recognition of marriages is the last relic of the ultimate entanglement of church and state. It is the epitome of public intrusion into private affairs. In an age when we have, for better or worse, legalized abortion and sodomy, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by leaving the institution of marriage to individuals, their churches, their communities and their own consciences.
Gay marriage has so divided the country because marriage is inextricably intertwined with religion. For the government to sanction gay marriage would thus affront the religious beliefs of a vast majority of Americans. The government should not violate its citizens' religious tenets, but neither should it sanction institutions so deeply entrenched in religion in the first place. If the Catholic Church or the Southern Baptists wish to exclude gays from marriage, so be it. As organized religions, that is their right. If more liberal denominations wish to accommodate gays, that is also their right. The government has no place in this theological issue.
Of course, marriage has also had a long-standing civil, non-religious role in our society. People get married for all sorts of secular reasons, whether it is for love, raising a family or for money. Again, the government has no place in promoting any of these reasons. Conservatives have justified government regulation of marriage as a means to promote families, child-rearing and social stability. But government support for children has also been a cornerstone of propping up public schools. Conservatives, of all people, know that public schools have become such havens for hedonism and heathenism that many parents now insist on home-schooling their kids at all costs. When the government gets involved in social policies like nurturing families and children, it almost always falls short.
For gay activists, government recognition of marriage is important because so many rights and benefits flow from marriage: inheritance rights to a partner's assets, division of joint property upon separation, certain tax benefits, employer-provided partnership medical benefits and hospital visitation rights. Many of these benefits, however, are wholly independent of the government being involved in marriage.
Whether or not an employer provides gay partner benefits -- in fact, many already do -- is a private sector decision, as is a hospital's policy on visitation rights. How these institutions choose to determine one's partnership status is up to them. While private policies may give rise to antidiscrimination issues, regardless of whether the government recognizes marriages, one can still sue on the grounds of denial of equal protection for gays.
On the other hand, divorce and inheritance laws would still present the problem of state involvement in marriage. These laws should thus also be abolished and replaced entirely with private contracts -- i.e., prenuptial agreements and wills. After all, how many people really trust judges to decide which spouse was cruel, unfaithful or unloving? It is unclear that courts can objectively get it right when deciding which parent should get the child (except if it's Michael Jackson) or pay the alimony. After the recent Terri Schiavo fiasco, it is clear the courts are fundamentally incapable of making family decisions, nor should they. If spouses, parents and children can't get along, that is something they must work out between themselves. Unless there are issues of violence or abuse, which free-standing laws exist to address, leave the government out of it.
When faced with any social problem, libertarians have one standard response: Leave it to the private sector. It is at times like these, when liberals and conservatives simply cannot agree, that I am most proud to be a libertarian. Can't agree on gay marriage? Get the government out of marriage. It's just that simple.
Eric Wang's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ewang@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
