Marriage A Privilige For All
Posted: January 7, 2013
When Lois and I decided to get married, we dutifully went to the James City County courthouse where we were living and applied for a license to marry. The deputy commissioner was very polite. She made sure we completed the application accurately, checked our identities and collected the fee. Then she issued a license to marry.
That’s the last we heard from her or anyone else at the county offices. No anniversary cards, no phone call asking how the marriage was going, nothing in the last 10 years.
It’s family, friends and the Quaker community who have cared for and supported our marriage, not any government. How is it right a free people need the permission of a government to marry?
Of all the major decisions I have made in my life getting married is the only one which required prior permission of a government organization. I didn’t need a license ever to buy a house in a neighborhood of my choice, nor to go to the college of my choice, nor to have children, nor what car to buy, nor which stores to shop in, nor what church to attend.
Why then do we allow the government to decide who we can marry?
Why then, when marriage is concerned, do “we, the people” ignore Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution? This amendment was passed to prevent states from making and enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Isn’t marriage a privilege to be enjoyed by all of us who desire it?
Is it not wrong to require those who wish to marry to appear before some disinterested deputy commissioner to decide whether to allow two people to marry? While the social discourse today concerns gay marriage, aren’t heterosexuals offended by having to ask permission from a bureaucrat to marry the person they love? What, after all, is the responsibility of the government to the success of any marriage? It has none. Is it not wrong both constitutionally and morally that we judge the worth of marriage between two people before it is allowed to grow? That is the fundamental question now before the Supreme Court.
But, “what if,” you may ask, “my own values or the beliefs of my faith group don’t align with the two people wanting to marry?” That’s OK. You have the right not to associate with anyone whose values differ from yours. And your faith-based organization can choose not to acknowledge the marriage and even exclude the happily married couple. But neither you nor society have the right to force your values on others with different values.
Some believe that homosexual marriages won’t provide a proper environment for family life. Heterosexual marriages aren’t all “Ozzie and Harriet” families. Divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse and abandonment, occur in the families of the “traditional marriage.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, asserts that voters in states where the Constitution defines marriage only between a man and a woman would not stand for “redefining our most fundamental social institution.” Why is it the role of government to define marriage? Why not let it be defined by the times and society we now live in.
Marriage as a social institution has evolved over time. The patriarchs of the Old Testament were polygamists. Arranged marriages in times past were a social norm. In our very recent history (until 1967) interracial marriage was still illegal in 16 states. That was bad law and was eliminated.
Today in most of America, gay men and women cannot marry. This is bad law. The time is now for all Americans to be allowed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” with a partner of their choice, unencumbered by the need to have a license from the government.
Mr. Crawford lives in Harrisonburg.
That’s the last we heard from her or anyone else at the county offices. No anniversary cards, no phone call asking how the marriage was going, nothing in the last 10 years.
It’s family, friends and the Quaker community who have cared for and supported our marriage, not any government. How is it right a free people need the permission of a government to marry?
Of all the major decisions I have made in my life getting married is the only one which required prior permission of a government organization. I didn’t need a license ever to buy a house in a neighborhood of my choice, nor to go to the college of my choice, nor to have children, nor what car to buy, nor which stores to shop in, nor what church to attend.
Why then do we allow the government to decide who we can marry?
Why then, when marriage is concerned, do “we, the people” ignore Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution? This amendment was passed to prevent states from making and enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Isn’t marriage a privilege to be enjoyed by all of us who desire it?
Is it not wrong to require those who wish to marry to appear before some disinterested deputy commissioner to decide whether to allow two people to marry? While the social discourse today concerns gay marriage, aren’t heterosexuals offended by having to ask permission from a bureaucrat to marry the person they love? What, after all, is the responsibility of the government to the success of any marriage? It has none. Is it not wrong both constitutionally and morally that we judge the worth of marriage between two people before it is allowed to grow? That is the fundamental question now before the Supreme Court.
But, “what if,” you may ask, “my own values or the beliefs of my faith group don’t align with the two people wanting to marry?” That’s OK. You have the right not to associate with anyone whose values differ from yours. And your faith-based organization can choose not to acknowledge the marriage and even exclude the happily married couple. But neither you nor society have the right to force your values on others with different values.
Some believe that homosexual marriages won’t provide a proper environment for family life. Heterosexual marriages aren’t all “Ozzie and Harriet” families. Divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse and abandonment, occur in the families of the “traditional marriage.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, asserts that voters in states where the Constitution defines marriage only between a man and a woman would not stand for “redefining our most fundamental social institution.” Why is it the role of government to define marriage? Why not let it be defined by the times and society we now live in.
Marriage as a social institution has evolved over time. The patriarchs of the Old Testament were polygamists. Arranged marriages in times past were a social norm. In our very recent history (until 1967) interracial marriage was still illegal in 16 states. That was bad law and was eliminated.
Today in most of America, gay men and women cannot marry. This is bad law. The time is now for all Americans to be allowed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” with a partner of their choice, unencumbered by the need to have a license from the government.
Mr. Crawford lives in Harrisonburg.