The problem with state-sanctioned love

My home state of California is responsible for the hearings last week in the Supreme Court surrounding Proposition 8, which prohibits homosexual couples from marrying. This violation of human rights has sparked outcries in all corners of this country and has contributed to an ongoing and important dialogue on the rights we human beings innately possess. The rising tide of progressivism has seen important advances in the ability of homosexual couples to adopt and enjoy equal privileges within our society. These advances are necessary if we are to fully live out the promise of our Constitution and the vision of freedom our country represents. There is, however, a deeper issue at play within the Supreme Court case that needs to be addressed: We need to decide what role the government should have in legitimating marriages at all.

The bond between two people, regardless of race or sexual orientation, is an affair that should be separate from the workings of government. What role should a bureaucratic body play in evaluating the love or level of commitment between two people? Marriage is not a right that needs to be protected by the Supreme Court or by any constitution, state or federal. It is an innately given ability that stems from one’s desire to commit to another person. I realize that certain legal privileges are linked with a marriage certificate, but my argument is that this construct is inherently limiting. The government should have no role in legitimating or regulating what should be as undeniable as the right to live. To invite the state into such intimate affairs is to court controversy and open the door for the abuse of personal dignity. As recently as 2009, a justice of the peace in Louisiana refused the ability of an interracial couple to marry. This is more than 80 years after most laws banning interracial marriage were overturned. By agreeing to let the state regulate marriage we have in effect ceded our ability to make that decision on our own. Marriage is not a privilege, it’s a right. The most basic rights don’t need to be written down. If marriage was not administered by the state, then nobody could be denied the ability to marry because of the homophobic or racist views of others. It is not something for which you should have to ask permission.

Libertarians argue along a similar line, and we should take note. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are advocating a platform that would truly recognize what should be in the most basic sense an inalienable right. This is the problem with enumerating rights—it is inherently self-restricting. Arguing that marriage should be a constitutionally protected right implies that the government should have a role in authorizing it. The way out of this quagmire, like within most private affairs, is to invite less governmental interference. This is a solution that could satisfy all parties. Religious conservatives are concerned with the sanctity of marriage. Let them have it! Their churches and religious bodies could give or deny marriage licenses as they please, but by removing the government’s role their objections can be assuaged. Conversely, the opposing side would be given the rights and privileges that they justly deserve. Legal contracts and associations could take the place of what has previously been a governmental affair. I fear, however, that the issue is more intractable than this and that such a solution is not only idealistic but also impossible. For better or worse, this country possesses a large number of people who hold strongly to their religious beliefs. There are religious beliefs that unfortunately sometimes have been interpreted to advocate bigotry and discrimination. There is a strong current in American society that approves of government having a role in legislating morality. Some individuals believe that government should play a role in legitimating marriage. This is a democracy and they have a right to be heard—but if we are to cling to this outdated notion of state-sanctioned love, then it is imperative that gay and lesbian couples are afforded the same rights as all citizens. The fight for equality in other spheres must continually be pursued. This column is in no way suggesting that there isn’t important work to do in the field of LGBT rights. There clearly is, and as long as discrimination exists the law will be important in eliminating it. The solution to this problem, however, lies in less governmental interference, not more.

Colin Scott is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Monday.