Marriage is Dead! Long Live Marriage!

Photo: homyox/stock.xchng

So the the majority of voters in Maine have decided that certain civil rights should be based upon the collective chromosomal makeup of the pairs of its citizens wishing to exercise those rights.

This issue is destined to be argued, with significant expenditures of individual and taxpayer monies, over and over again in the next few years. It is quite likely to end up in the Supreme Court, as have other civil rights issues.

Let’s all just save our time, money, and breath, and decide that the term “marriage” has no legal meaning.

Marriage means different things to different people, and my definition isn’t necessarily your definition. Currently, all of the following scenarios meet the legal definition of marriage:

• A man and woman who have filed the requisite paperwork and made vows in front of legal witnesses in a church—presided over by a member of the clergy;
• A man and woman who have filed the requisite paperwork and made vows in front of legal witnesses almost anywhere—presided over by anyone empowered by the state to do;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but do not love one another;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but do not live together;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but do not intend to have children;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, but engage in sexual relations with other parties;
• A man and a woman who have undergone any of the above, one or both of whom who have been legally married to others any number of times, provided they have also undergone the necessary legal steps to dissolve previous marriages.

While all of these scenarios meet the legal definition of marriage, some do not meet the definitions held by various religions. Some of them do not meet my personal definition of marriage.

Marriage, as a legal entity, is a contract. And while the state places certain limits on who may enter into contracts, I am aware of no precedent for prohibitions based on the gender of the parties. So let’s call the legal state of “marriage” what it is—a domestic partnership—regardless of the gender of its participants, and make it available to any two individuals who would normally be entitled to form such a partnership.

It’s time to return “marriage” to its rightful place: the hearts of individuals.