A Centrist’s Platform 2008 — Abortion and Marriage

(This is one of a weekly series of posts entitled “A Centrist’s Platform”. The complete collection of Centrist’s Platform posts is available on a single page, or via a special RSS feed.)

In past discussions I’ve witnessed, where the principles of a centrist or libertarian party platform have attempted to have been worked out, one of the big challenges that must be overcome is that of abortion.  It’s a major political concern to many, and views on the subject tend to be highly polarized.

Frankly, when I was outlining the subjects I wanted to touch upon in my “Centrist’s Platform” series of posts, I was very tempted to skip over the subject due to the sensitivity of the matter.  (But, it’s not like many people actually read my rantings…so I’ll press on.)

On the one hand, you have folks who are morally horrified over such statistics as “20% of all pregnancies are terminated with an abortion”.   On the other, you have those who believe a woman should be in control of her own bodily functions.

Personally, I’m of a mind that an “abortion of convenience” is tantamount to murder, while an “abortion necessary to protect the health of the mother” is a tragedy, but something that should be available to those who need it.

However, “necessary to protect the health…” is a fuzzy term.  Mental and physical health matters are incredibly complex to perfectly define.  So, unless a legislative body is comprised predominantly of medical experts specializing in women’s health issues, I think such questions necessarily need to be left in the hands of a woman, her doctor, and others they may choose to include in the determination.

And because of the wide range of ambiguities involved…I submit that attempting any codification of the matter is an exercise in futility.

There, isn’t that simple?

If government involvement is required — a point I’m not sure I’d agree to begin with on — I’d prefer that it be focused on ensuring that people are adequately informed in order to make appropriate decisions and take appropriate measures before being exposed to a certain hormone-induced temporary drop in IQ and reason.

Oftentimes, other family issues are raised alongside the question of abortion.  Although the fuss seems to have declined somewhat in the past couple of years, the biggie would seem to be questions of same-gender marriage.

If I’m not mistaken, Americans have reached a point where a majority (or a near-majority) accept the notion of “civil unions” — the idea that the civic rights, privileges and responsibilities traditionally associated with marriage should be awarded to committed couples without actually describing the relationship as “marriage”.

Criticisms on that stance seem to focus on whether the state should “legitimize” same-gender relationships, versus whether the state should be obliged to bolster the social recognition of the status between same-gender couples by bestowing the label “marriage”.

What I’d like to know is — who came up with the idea that the state grants marriage?   Depending on your view, marriage is a sacrament bestowed by God, or is type of relationship that a committed couple agree to regardless of what others might say.

While I think there is something to be said for the state bundling rights, privileges, and obligations into a convenient label, to facilitate stable families… it boggles my mind to believe that anyone would buy into the notion that the state grants marriage.

Therefore, I’d like to see the government get out of the marriage business.   Let the state handle the paperwork and bureaucracy surrounded with the record keeping and protections needed to facilitate stable families blind to certain groups’ societal or religious biases.  Call that state recognition “civil union”.  And leave the question of whether a relationship is or is not “marriage” to religious or social institutions.