The subject of what constitutes a marriage, and whether gender should really matter in state recognition of marriages, has been a hot topic recently, with California’s Supreme Court ruling that a prohibition on same-gender marriage runs afoul of that state’s constitution, and indications that New York will begin recognizing same-gender marriages performed out-of-state.
While conservatives have, predictably, come out of the woodwork railing against the gay threat to the institution of marriage, I take some comfort in seeing a few more folks sharing a viewpoint similar to mine — the notion that a government can dictate who can or cannot get married is silly, and that the real question is whether the state should recognize all marriages that have taken place.
I came across a comment at The Moderate Voice which is a wonderfully succinct way to help make that point:
The first point often made is that it is wrong for us to ‘approve of’ or ‘allow’ gays to have the same romantic activities that ‘normal people’ do (please note the quotes there).
Now perhaps someone forgot to send me the memo, but as far as I know, two consenting adults do not need my permission, blessing or consent to do whatever they want to with someone they love.
Indeed the only circumstance where my consent would be required is if I was the subject of the romance (which I suppose would depend on how good dinner was).
So on point #1, I see no reason whatsoever for me to rail over what romances happen between what people. If personal distaste were the standard, Britney Spears would have been banned from dating years ago.
(emphasis added)
And now, I have to admit that the image of a state-run “Bureau of Relationships” just popped up in my mind. Imagine a DMV-like place, to which you must go to register or obtain permission for each new tryst or relationship….