Christians have a current definition that is still a bit subjective as to what that bond between a man and a woman entails for the twenty-first century. Our government has failed to adopt a definition of its own, relying instead on the view of the dominant religion here or on traditional practice with all its assumptions. At least most states have abandoned their common-law marriage requirement, which is considered marriage forced on unwilling citizens. The world has changed dramatically over the past century and our government has failed to change with it regarding some aspects of American life. I suppose it has had more pressing matters.
The second question, after the clear definition, is why government or religion is involved in such a personal relationship. Religions have their reasons that the people of those religions evidently accept since they seek guidance in life from their religion. As to our government, then, what is its role in this most personal of relationships if, indeed, it should have such a role at all? Should it? Why?
I believe government has an obligation to protect those citizens who are vulnerable in some way. Children certainly are as are all dependent people like the elderly and disabled people to some extent. There was a time when women were dependent and without much power over their lives primarily due to simple biology. Minorities seem to need some protections against the majority where warranted. The general population needs protection against harmful business practices.
We have many laws and agencies in place to protect children (especially), wives, the elderly, disabled people and minorities. We have structures to address the dispensation of assets when a person dies without a will that has a hierarchy of relatives. That structure is used to also determine next-of-kin responsibility for those who are unable to speak for themselves. No citizen must accept these structures for themselves, but they must make separate legal arrangements to avoid them. If a single adult does not want their parents, siblings or children to speak for them or inherit their assets, they must make a will, a healthcare directive, a living will, power of attorney to someone they trust, etc. Otherwise, the government’s default procedures rule. Included in those defaults are the spouse as first in line.
Today, spouses often change, even multiple times over a lifetime, so the government has to keep up with this in order to apply its default structures. This change, if only once, creates identity problems for women in an age of credit and increased identity verification. Women should keep their maiden names throughout their legal lives if they chose to marry. Many people choose not to be married at all, even if they live together and have children. All of them come under the default laws just as single adults do, so they must prepare paperwork to avoid any or all of the governments defaults if those defaults are not agreeable to them.
Government needs to assign responsibility for children, absolutely. Today reliable DNA testing establishes paternity and maternity without question instead of relying on the assumed mother and father, the latter by way of marriage, the former by hospital records if not birthed at home. Women now have the ability and obligation to be self-supporting; therefore, they should not have a separate status in the eyes of government. If a couple, married or not, decide to bring children into our world, they should do so without the assistance of government. Why should others carry the burden of the decision (or irresponsibility) of individuals? Our planet in no way needs more human beings. Society should continue to support the education of children who do arrive on the scene because that brings a benefit to society as a whole.
So, given all this, why does government need to recognize personal relationships as separate from the individual? Is it government’s place to make laws whose purpose is social engineering, in this case encouraging the production and care of children? People will either do the right thing or not; laws (and tax breaks) will not and cannot make anyone do what they should; they can only punish or correct the situation on behalf of the vulnerable. So why does government even need to create a government definition of “marriage” and call it a civil union as opposed to a religious marriage which government should not recognize, but absolutely allow. If it does offer civil union recognition, then the issue is the definition of it. What should that definition be based on? Which then asks why government needs to recognize such relationships. The only answer is social engineering for one reason or another. Is this right? It may be, but I don’t think so.
Sincerely,
Virginia Moss
