We Need a "Gay Marriage" Amendment

The pundits have missed the point of the argument wherein gay marriage is concerned. Debates are raging amongst politicians throughout the "free" world about what to do now that gays and lesbians have decided that they wish to get married. The President of the United States even wants a "marriage amendment" placed in the Constitution of the United States.

The debate rages on, about "protecting the sanctity of marriage", and whether or not by allowing gay marriage we invite the wrath of God, such as with Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. People talk about a separation between Church and state, though it doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. The arguments on morality will plague mankind for years to come. Some have drawn a correlation drawn between gay marriage and polygamy, the argument being that if we allow gays to marry, then why not polygamists. While that is a slippery slope in logic, the reality is that it's not actually a bad question to ask. HOWEVER, all of these things miss the real point.

The real debate on gay marriage should be twofold. Firstly, in drafting a constitutional amendment, we must ask an all-important question. What has the purpose of the Constitution been so far? Secondly, what is the government's interest in marriage? Debate on the morality of gay marriage wherein the government is concerned misses the point of the necessary debate. We have to examine governmental role. In order to get the right answer, somebody must first ask the right question.

The purpose of the Constitution has been to create Uniform Law where states have failed to agree. The Constitution specifically leaves matters that are NOT federally governed to the governance of the States. In some cases, it has become necessary for the Government to intervene in order to clarify a national stance. It goes far deeper than that though.

With one exception, that found itself repealed, the Constitution of the United States, including all of its amendments has never been about the behavior of people, but of the government. The framers understood that without limits, governments will run amuck and take away freedom from people. As John Adams said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". As such, the constitution has always limited the rights of the government and clarified the rights of the people. The documents always sides with giving freedom to the people. The Canadian Charter of Rights is no different in this regard. To set in place the sort of amendment prescribed by George Bush, wherein marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman would be decidedly a step in the other direction. Those words would intrude on the lives of individuals, and enumerate a power of government never heretofore enumerated. I do believe we need a marriage amendment (Which I will propose at the end of this diatribe) which protects all nuptial agreements, including gay marriage, but the words I would choose are far different than those proposed by the sitting President. We need an amendment for the same reason we always have needed various amendments, to clarify a national stance worthy of a free people.

As I see it, the interest of government in Marriage is twofold:

Firstly and most importantly, the government's interest is monetary. When two people become married, they individually take on the sum total of the debt to government owed by those two people during the course of their marriage. Therefore, at the end of a marriage, even where judges have decreed that one spouse or the other is responsible for a given portion of any tax liability owed, the tax collector goes after both spouses equally, and 100% (not 50/50) for the debt that is owed, until such point as the entirety of the obligation has been satisfied. In other words, each party becomes 100% liable for the FULL payment of the debt during the period of time in which they are married. To me, that just looks like an insurance policy. Not a bad idea if you ask me.

Secondly, along the lines of the first is that a government's responsibility in marriage is the protection of its investment. While it's not enough, the government spends billions of dollars per year educating and indoctrinating the next generation of taxpayers. There is proof that a stable home life leads to the long-term best interest of the children, including their wage earning potential. Insomuch as the government is concerned, children are like a crop. The better the crop, the better the monetary yield. The fact is that in a nation where 75% of first marriages end in children and divorce, and 50% of all marriages end in divorce (Seconds marriages typically fare better than first marriages), the government has a responsibility to itself to look after marriage. Too many people are getting married and not enough are staying together, maintaining happy, healthy homes/ incubation chambers for up-and-coming taxpayers.

People speak of the "sanctity of marriage" being destroyed by gay marriage, but the reality is that if marriage were so sacred, then divorce would be more rare. People get married out of feelings of love, but there is no training on the practical aspects of marriage. Interestingly enough, in countries where marriages are arranged between people who have never even met, the divorce rate is far lower. I am not advocating arranged marriages, but demonstrating the importance of practicality training in marriage. We all get married with dreams that we will break the mold, that we will wear gowns (tuxedos for the men), drink champagne, and attend lavish parties where they serve caviar and crab cakes. In the end, though the vast majority of us wear t-shirts and jeans, drink beer and diet soda, and attend the occasional super bowl party where they serve Doritos and hotdogs. We tend to dine on more fish sticks than crab cakes.

Marriage as an institution has failed in part due to a general breakdown of the family support structure. Due to the ease of travel, the vast majority of married couples live in different cities than their relatives, making support systems more difficult. Furthermore, because we get married with stars in our eyes, we fail to realize the practical side of marriage. No Jeeves will NOT be taking the children to the park in the limousine. YOU will be taking them to the park in the mini-van, and by the way, the payment is past due.

The government has an interest in fixing marriage. One way to do that is indeed to include practicality training into our education system. The second way to do it is to change the law so that when people get married they take on not only the tax liability of the other for the time that they are married, but also the time leading up to the time they marry. FURTHERMORE, it should include ALL liabilities, not just tax liabilities and the law should require full disclosure so that both parties are made aware of the practicalities they are taking on when choosing to marry. Nothing ruins a marriage faster than fights over money. There is a reason banks don't loan money to some people after viewing a credit report. Marriage should be the same way. There should be a point at which we take a look at the sort of person we are actually marrying. It doesn't matter how fun they are if they are going to destroy your finances. Money won't make you happy, but the lack of it will certainly make you miserable, and a spouse who drags you down monetarily will eventually be tossed aside…GUARANTEED.

Notice, so far, I have not really gotten into the subject of same sex marriage Yet? Okay. Now I will. In fact, I will even get into the issue of polygamy. Here goes: The government's interest in marriage between people is purely monetary. It does not care about love. It does not care about religion. It does not care about how well people click. It cares only for its own interest, that being the fact that when people join in marriage, they give the government a greater assurance that debt owed to that government will be paid back. Regardless of morality, or what the church or the religious may have to say on the matter, the reality is that is in the government's best interest to give itself a better standing wherein the collection of debt is concerned. PERIOD. From a purely governmental point of view, in a free society, void of entrapments of obligation to religious morality, the government shouldn't care who the two people are or if the two people suddenly become 20 people.

I said earlier that I would propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (also the Canadian Charter of rights) Which protects gay marriage. Here it is:

Knowing that a greater assurance of financial protection for itself, and respecting the right of free people to enter contractual legal unions are both wise and noble endeavors, The government shall make no law prohibiting the union of people who have reached consenting age, of any gender, race, religion, or social standing in marriage who agree to assume fully the sum total of financial liabilities of all parties involved up to and including the time of the marriage union.

Should such a union end, then the parties will continue after dissolution, to maintain the liabilities of the other that were garnered up to the date of the legal dissolution. Furthermore before the parties may enter into said marriage union, all financial data available at the time of the union will be presented and signed by all parties and by the witness that shall be responsible for the officiating of said union. No business entity, healthcare or insurance provider or credit provider may offer any offering to some married unions that they do not offer to others on the basis of gender, number of married partners, religion, or ethnicity of the married partners.

Religious organizations will, by this amendment have the right to continue to determine for themselves which marriage contracts that they will officiate. Furthermore, any officer of the state whose religious or moral convictions conflict with being the officiate of any marriage contract initiation may refuse to do so on moral grounds if they should choose.

That's it. SIMPLE! I do have an opinion on Same Sex marriage, as we all do, but wherein government is concerned, I draw a line in the sand. "DON'T TREAD ON ME!"
If you agree with me on these matters, feel free to copy the gist of the argument, including the text of the proposed amendment and to forward them to your congressional or parliament representative, and friends who will also do the same. The world is changed by the noisiest minority for lack of a voice from the majority. It's time to do your part. Make a little noise in defense of liberty.