Gay marriage. For or against? This is a topic that’s been cropping up a lot lately and I thought I ought to throw in my two cents. Im Against. Wait what? 

Don’t go flying off the deep end calling me a bigot or anything because Im also against heterosexual marriage.

Yes you heard me I’m against the institution of marriage or more accurately against government approved marriage and as a person of logic you should see the reasons right away. Abolish the concept of government approved marriage and replace it with my solution and you end government bigotry against homosexuals. OK well you end it only in regards to marriage. And yes I do have a replacement idea that I will enumerate on in a moment. It will not only fix the bigotry against homosexuals but will also end it against others who are excluded from the government sponsored marriage and even might help deal with a little of our current health care coverage issues. Read on.

Let us first define what we are talking about though because the term marriage is so loosely thrown around.  I am not talking about a private institution such as a church, mosque, synagogue, temple or for that matter the local Elks Club performing some sort of marriage ritual for two or more people. These rituals have meaning primarily only within the social group they effect. Or at least should. And quite frankly these private organizations have every right to exclude any people from their rituals for any reason. That’s the American way. Seriously for those of you trying to force a particular group of people to accept you for any reason into their group just stop. Not only will catholics never allow a homosexual couple to marry in the “eyes of god” but they should never in America be forced to. Enough said about private marriages.

I’m talking about going to your local government. That is, the marriage legally endorsed by a government body that now binds you together in a legal manner. The proverbial justice of the piece marriage but for any marriage to be legal in the eyes of the government you need to get a marriage certificate from your local governing office. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but the end result is the same. You and another person are now married legally together in the eyes of the United States of America as well as many other governing bodies around the world.

But what just happened, really? You have not really agreed to stay together “till death do you part”, that’s more an “eyes-o-god” sort of concept. Divorce, at over 50% in the US, negates that clause.  Nor have you really agreed to remain faithful, respectful, honor or obey or any of the other random words that one spews out during the service and you responded to with a kneejerk “I do.” What you have agreed to in the eyes of the government is a financial incorporation.

“Cynic!” I can hear you screaming from the rooftops but deep down you must realize that this is really the truth. All the other things you said “I do” to can be broken at any time without consequence except for financially. Sadly even the responsibility for being a parent is not enforced by the government. Only the financial responsibility is. You are free to make a child and abandon it from a parental standpoint. You are not free to abandon the financial responsibility however.

You have agreed that from this point forward your debits, profits, business ventures, capitol and all other financial responsibilities are combined. Shared. Inseparable. In fact this is so true that in some cases where some assets are desired to be keep free of the marriage a prenuptial agreement must be signed by both parties. There is one other thing loosely related to finances you are now “entitled” to share. Health Insurance.  More on that in a moment.

The financial responsibilities of a government sponsored marriage are the only things you said “I do” to that cannot be negated in full by divorce. Stop and think about this then come back and keep reading because this cynic still has not dropped the real bomb.

Feeling depressed now?

So what homosexuals are looking for in government sponsored marriage is really just combined financial responsibility and the benefits that come from it. That is to say it is easier for a married couple with a combined income and legal financial responsibility to qualify for a large loan. Because they are legally required to pay back that loan jointly and because their now legally combined household income and assets can be attacked in the event that they, together, default on that loan. Because of this union of financial responsibility the bank will, or should be more willing to, give it to them.

They are also able to combine their tax liability to their benefit. Although it is not always to a couples benefit to combine tax liability it is, for the most part, only married couples who can legally combine their tax liability for their benefit and financial gains.  Im sure some tax lawyer out there knows some loopholes that can be utilized to circumvent this but we are not talking about getting around the laws, Gay marriage rights are about being exactly equal in the eyes of the law not getting around a bad law.

Furthermore, their joint status now allows them to legally combine health insurance. Meaning that whichever of the marriage partnership has the better insurance policy, say through their job, can now put the other on their policy and the combined status generally will save them money over two persons having insurance individually. So again even though Health Insurance is not necessarily a monetary issue it still really is. Also if one partner is not employed or if their employer does not offer insurance they can benefit from being married and jointly insured through the others insurance. As far as I know that only applies to married couples at the moment.

So love, honor, respect, sexual faithfulness and all the other morality based, tear jerking concepts that you say “I do” to at your wedding are the concepts of the private organizations endorsement of marriage and subject to the moral codes of that organization. Legal government marriage is a financial bond.

That about wraps it up for what government sponsored marriage is. You can tack on all the stuff about love, honor, respect and till death do us part but the government cares little for any of those things. At best they can be used later down the road in the divorce court as ammunition to benefit one party or another financially and even infidelity, although grounds for divorce will not negate your financial obligations. It may however gain you leverage in dividing that responsibility but not much more than that.

On to the original statement and my personal view on a solution to marriage for our modern society.

We all know that most state sponsored marriage laws exclude homosexuals from being married legally and therefore taking on the financial responsibilities and reaping the benefits thereof. But others are excluded from this government sponsored marriage and oddly enough often times even by the gay community. Polygamists.

Yes polygamy, the right for three or more people to marry in the eyes of the law is illegal. In fact you can be arrested for it in some states. I don’t think the same can still be said for homosexuality and no the sodomy laws cannot be enforced anymore so let it go. Here is a question I have posed many times to many people who view themselves as “diehard liberals” and the responses I have gotten are often decidedly conservative.

Give me one “non-morality” based reason that polygamy is illegal. You cant. The fact of the matter is that in many cultures it is and continues to be the norm.

Now ask yourself to envision the polygamist household. Is there one man and several women in your head? Then you’re a sexist.

The term polygamy means that three or more people are married to each other. The number of people and the sex of any of them is irrelevant.  As long as there are three or more adults willing to commit to the shared responsibility and enjoy the benefits then that should be enough.

So looking at this from that standpoint the act of marriage from a government standpoint should be nothing more than a contract between two or more people who wish to share the responsibilities of being married and take the benefits. This of course would include the full responsibility of raising any children born into this collective household.

Imagine if you will a child with not one not two but ten parents all legally bound to support that child into adulthood. Furthermore this child would also stand a much higher chance of having one or more parents who stay at home with them throughout the day leaving such things as outside daycare and the dreaded parental nightmare of finding a safe and reliable babysitter in the past. Then there is the issue of healthcare.

Healthcare is such a hot topic nowadays and polygamy has the potential for a built in solution. Two even. First the more partners the family has the more likely they will be to have more than one person with good insurance provided through their work. Second the very guidelines of our healthcare industry could be altered to allow for these large family groups to be given a group rate based on their own numbers. Much the same way a small business of 8 to 10 employees would.

The more you think about the benefits of eliminating the religious and conservative views on what marriage really is the more you have to come to realize that its time to put an end to all our archaic views and move into a new world of true personal freedom.

So does the church have to accept polygamy? Of course not. Any private organization is free to decide what their rules are. The church no more has to accept the polygamist than they have to accept homosexuals. And for that matter any other group of people. They risk alienating too large a group any time they do but that is there choice as a private organization. The government however should not be allowed to discriminate against any group of people for any reason that is not truly against the public welfare. Marriage in the eyes of the government is nothing more than a contract.  Lets stop calling it something religious and by doing so remove the very rational for discrimination. Let churches, temples, synagogues and mosques perform marriages according to their ancient customs.  Let the government endorse and enforce “family contracts” between two or more adults.

OK so maybe someone else can come up with a better name but you get the idea.  Gay, Straight, Bi or Poly. The government should see none of this. To the future.