Gardner Goldsmith column on the marriage amendment

[KBCraig]

Our ol' buddy Gard (who is apparently too busy to come see us these days  ) has a column in the 3/13 Union Leader.

I agree with him, but I'll let him speak for himself:

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gardner+Goldsmith%3a+The+state+has+no+business+in+defining+marriage&articleId=950ce06c-1e68-4dc5-bf51-f35b3cef0262

Gardner Goldsmith: The state has no business in defining marriage

By GARDNER GOLDSMITH
YOUR TURN, NH

BEFORE THE New Hampshire House of Representatives is the "Marriage Amendment" (CACR 34), which would rewrite the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. There are compelling reasons to oppose passage of this amendment.

First, it is important to note the popular misconception that a state-sanctioned marriage is a "right." A state-sanctioned marriage is a government-proffered benefit, granting unique government treatment by law, and forcing unique treatment by private industry under the law. It grants the sole license of conducting legal marriages to a select few and excludes others from operating freely to conduct legal marriages.

These facts alone stand in sufficient contravention to the concept of individual liberty to warrant opposition to state-licensed marriage. George and Martha Washington never had a marriage license, and most Americans didn't need them until the mid-1800s. It is likely they would be appalled by the degree to which we have gotten the government involved in a sacred religious ceremony.

Regardless, homosexuals claim to have a "right" to be married by the state, just like heterosexual couples do, and this claim has been recognized in certain jurisdictions in the United States. Since, under the "full faith and credit clause" of the U.S. Constitution, any legally binding contract from one state must be recognized as legally binding in all others, supporters of "traditional marriage" fear that marriage licenses granted to homosexuals in other states would have to be recognized in their home states. So they attempt to pass laws or constitutional amendments to protect them against this prospect. This seems rather a waste of time, since supporters of homosexual marriage will challenge state laws or state amendments, expressing their belief in "equal treatment" under the law, as codified in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment actually states, in part, that citizens shall be afforded "equal protection" under the law, not "equal treatment," it is likely that the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment will be overlooked by the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be supplanted by the contemporary interpretation of "equal treatment" under the law, and then, heterosexual marriage will be history.

But in addition to the legal miasma, there is another consideration.

Proponents of legally codified heterosexual marriage state that their primary reason for pursuing their course of action is to protect children. Marriage, they say, is a contract over which we give the state control in order to protect the next generation. They cite oft-debated studies that show the best situation for the upbringing of a child is in a two-parent, male-female home. The biological parents are the best option, they say, for the healthy growth of a child. They claim that by legalizing only "one man-one woman" marriages, they promote the optimal conditions for the upbringing of a child.

But that begs the question: by legalizing only the optimal, do they agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a continuum from the worst ? say, being raised by wolves in the forest ? to the best possible ? being raised by loving, talented, brilliant millionaires ? would amendment supporters eventually determine that anything below the millionaire level was suboptimal and therefore illegal? Would one have to undergo a wealth and intelligence test before being married, because his marriage could lead to child-rearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment? The standard is arbitrary and dangerous to a free society.

Many of my friends favor passage of this amendment. We respectfully disagree as to its efficacy, and I believe many on the pro-amendment side have not considered all the moral implications of getting the state involved in what constitutes a governmentally "acceptable" union for the upbringing of a child.

[aries]

Geez, if I were getting married, the last marriage I'd opt for is one of those difficult state marriages. You get all wound up in legal agreements, etc.

I'd much rather marry someone I loved, not "by the power vested in me by the state of New Hampshire" but "vested in me by the Lord God." Or how about "vested in me by the consenting parties"

Sounds a lot more official, too.

[cathleeninnh]

Geez, if I were getting married, the last marriage I'd opt for is one of those difficult state marriages. You get all wound up in legal agreements, etc.

I'd much rather marry someone I loved, not "by the power vested in me by the state of New Hampshire" but "vested in me by the Lord God." Or how about "vested in me by the consenting parties"

Sounds a lot more official, too.

I like this kid. Need more like him.

Cathleen

[Atlas]

Geez, if I were getting married, the last marriage I'd opt for is one of those difficult state marriages. You get all wound up in legal agreements, etc.

I'd much rather marry someone I loved, not "by the power vested in me by the state of New Hampshire" but "vested in me by the Lord God." Or how about "vested in me by the consenting parties"

Sounds a lot more official, too.

I like this kid. Need more like him.

Cathleen

Right on

[Recumbent ReCycler]

If I had been as educated about these things 10+ years ago as I am now, I think I would have opted to not get a marriage license.  Granted, I would not have gotten a housing allowance or medical coverage for my wife while I was in the military, but outside government employment, the license has little benefit.  I would prefer as little government involvement in my life as possible.  When my children get older, I will do my best to educate them about these things.  I think that the best thing that could be done about this is to remove government involvement in marriage, and give everyone the option of choosing a state sanctioned civil union that could have the legal effect of a marriage in government affairs if that is what the partners in said union want.  This civil union should be flexible in that the persons in the civil union should be able to decide what regulations and restrictions would apply to their specific civil union, kind of like a prenuptual agreement.  That way, if they could agree to whatever terms they wanted to before their civil union without having to worry about the government changing the rules after their union.  Marriage should be a personal/religious decision that the government should have no part in.