The complication of state-licensed marriage

The last 10 years have been rife with debate over whether or not marriage licenses should be open to same-sex couples. I've seen a few stories recently that I believe are relevant to the issue.

The first was an article from MinnPost about a straight Austrian couple who wants a same-sex marriage. Austrian same-sex unions carry over 72 differences from straight unions in Austria, and this couple sees advantages in the legal same-sex union over the legal straight union.

The second story was about Obama's proposed health care bill. The proposal to pay for this bill includes raising "Medicare payroll taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 and married couples over $250,000." If the disadvantage to being legally married doesn't make sense to you here, it's probably not worth me trying to explain it.

The third story isn't a news story but was something relayed to me recently. I was told of a pastor who will perform Christian marriages but won't sign the legal, civil marriage certificate because he doesn't believe the state should be responsible for authorizing something that is religious in his mind.

I'll let the stories above speak for themselves without my detailed review of each one. Suffice it to say, the first exposes flaws in multiple types of unions, the second shows just one disincentive to civil marriage, and the third simply raises the question of whether or not the state should even be involved in sanctioning marriage.

What should the state be sanctioning and what shouldn't it? Should it be creating a civil union to sanction what is ultimately a religious union?

Regardless of the answer to that question, there are enough benefits to civil marriage that have been built into our society and government that it's clear it will never go away. There's a reason military personnel often marry just before going overseas rather than when they would otherwise have gotten married. Whether it's death benefits, job benefits, hospital visitation rights, end of life decisions, etc., marriage provides a legal verification of a personal bond that is so close, one person is able to make legal decisions for the other when necessary.

I think I've been wrong on this issue in the past. I see absolutely no reason these legal rights shouldn't be available to same-sex couples. I couldn't care less if you call it marriage or a civil union, it's civil either way. I am convinced that whatever it's called for same-sex couples it should also be called for straight couples. Calling it something else and attributing different rights to it means it's legally not the same thing. It doesn't have to be the same thing religiously, but it should be the same thing legally.

I don't believe the Bible condones same-sex unions. I also don't believe the Bible condones sex outside of marriage, drunkenness, addiction to [insert addiction here], etc., yet these things are legally permitted and they should be.

I'm increasingly convinced of a more libertarian view of how our government should operate and this is just part of that. The hours and money spent fighting for constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions have been astronomical. California's Proposition 8 saw $83.2 million spent to sway voters both ways. Of all of the campaigns across the United States on 11-5-08, Prop 8 was only surpassed by the presidential campaign in the amount of money spent. Does anyone else think that's absolutely outrageous?!?

It's time to change our laws and watch life go on.