Editorial: Marriage shouldn't be government's concern
An Orange County Register editorial
Perhaps because leaders on both sides of the issue urged supporters to avoid undue disruption, the first few days of legal same-sex marriages in California went reasonably smoothly. An expensive and potentially acrimonious political tussle may be brewing behind the scenes, but both the celebrations and protests so far have been relatively low-key.
The uncertainty looming on the horizon is a measure on the November ballot that would declare that the state recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. Proposition 22, passed in 2000, declaring that marriage is only between a man and a woman, was a statute. The California Supreme Court decided in May that the law violated state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws to all. The measure in November is a constitutional amendment, so it would nullify the court's decision.
Our preference would be for the government not to be involved in marriage, the most fundamental of institutions in a civil society. Why two people who want to be married should be required to get a license from the state is something of a mystery. Marriage existed long before the California or U.S. governments came into being and will continue long after they have been consigned to history. Whether a marriage is valid should be up to the people involved and the churches, synagogues, mosques or other religious institutions that choose to perform them or not.
As a practical matter, however, the government has so entwined itself into our daily lives that state recognition is important. Filing taxes as a married couple or as individuals makes a difference, as does the ability to own real estate, make end-of-life decisions or adopt children. Considering all this and the importance of equality before the law, the high court's decision was justified.
It is argued that allowing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedom of people who have a religiously based objection to it. It is hard to see the validity. Church and state are correctly separate in this country, and the fact that the state recognizes a union as a marriage doesn't mean that a religious person or institution has to recognize it or approve of it. It's hard to imagine a minister, rabbi or imam who objects to same-sex marriages being forced to perform one, and we would be the first to object if anybody tried it.
Over time same-sex couples will find, as has been the case in Massachusetts, where such marriages have been legal for four years, (and as heterosexual couples know all too well) that marriage is not always easy. Married people disagree about all kinds of things, from money to recreational preferences, and have to find ways to work out their differences.
The relatively smooth transition to allowing same-sex marriages may be the calm before the storm. Still, it's nice that it has been calm so far.
An Orange County Register editorial
Perhaps because leaders on both sides of the issue urged supporters to avoid undue disruption, the first few days of legal same-sex marriages in California went reasonably smoothly. An expensive and potentially acrimonious political tussle may be brewing behind the scenes, but both the celebrations and protests so far have been relatively low-key.
The uncertainty looming on the horizon is a measure on the November ballot that would declare that the state recognizes only marriages between a man and a woman. Proposition 22, passed in 2000, declaring that marriage is only between a man and a woman, was a statute. The California Supreme Court decided in May that the law violated state constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal protection of the laws to all. The measure in November is a constitutional amendment, so it would nullify the court's decision.
Our preference would be for the government not to be involved in marriage, the most fundamental of institutions in a civil society. Why two people who want to be married should be required to get a license from the state is something of a mystery. Marriage existed long before the California or U.S. governments came into being and will continue long after they have been consigned to history. Whether a marriage is valid should be up to the people involved and the churches, synagogues, mosques or other religious institutions that choose to perform them or not.
As a practical matter, however, the government has so entwined itself into our daily lives that state recognition is important. Filing taxes as a married couple or as individuals makes a difference, as does the ability to own real estate, make end-of-life decisions or adopt children. Considering all this and the importance of equality before the law, the high court's decision was justified.
It is argued that allowing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedom of people who have a religiously based objection to it. It is hard to see the validity. Church and state are correctly separate in this country, and the fact that the state recognizes a union as a marriage doesn't mean that a religious person or institution has to recognize it or approve of it. It's hard to imagine a minister, rabbi or imam who objects to same-sex marriages being forced to perform one, and we would be the first to object if anybody tried it.
Over time same-sex couples will find, as has been the case in Massachusetts, where such marriages have been legal for four years, (and as heterosexual couples know all too well) that marriage is not always easy. Married people disagree about all kinds of things, from money to recreational preferences, and have to find ways to work out their differences.
The relatively smooth transition to allowing same-sex marriages may be the calm before the storm. Still, it's nice that it has been calm so far.
No comments:
Post a Comment