Monday, May 14, 2012

Fester on marriage, gay or otherwise

If you treat a marriage license, not like a government permission slip, but like a contract between two people who wish to be legally recognized as a single unit, then I cannot see the justification for exclusion.

The simple solution to this whole debate over gay marriage is to abolish the marriage license. A license is the government giving permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal (i.e why James Bond had a "license to kill"). If you believe the government should still involve itself in marriage, then the marriage license should be changed to a more complete marriage contract instead of the less complete marriage license. That would allow two unrelated people to sign a contract that legally binds them together as a single family unit. The the only restrictions would be those already in place for contractual agreements, which is simply that the parties involved have to be mentally fit enough to understand the terms of the contract when signing.


Naseem Mahnavi said...

Isn't marriage a fundamental human right?

Fester said...

Naseem, no, marriage is a societal construct and cannot be a human right. I would say that allowing people to engage in relationships is a human right, and to deny this you are denying their human rights. However, I don't see how marriage, especially marriage by a state, is a human right. That is why I advocate the elimination of the marriage license and government marriage certificate. Then marriage becomes a contract between consenting adults written in whatever way they desire on whatever terms they specify, and not something the government decides. I also do not believe in restrictions based on gender, ethnicity or even things like plural marriage and incestuous marriage, as long as no force was used. I see marriage as a a contract that binds two people together as a single unit, I don't see why there are any restrictions on who can bind themselves together in this way, but as long as the government is in the middle of marriage law their will always restrictions based on arbitrary things like gender and race.

Naseem Mahnavi said...

Fester, you are right. The marriage licence is a nuisance and denial of human rights. Encyclopedia Americana which I read about 23 years ago said that marriage licence was introduced in most US states by influencial men to prevent men and women with herpes from marrying their sons and daughters. If I know correctly, they still take a blood sample before considering marriage application. I have no idea how common herpes is these days in USA, and would certainly not like to experiment on the subject. As for the other issues raised by you, I believe in treating the feelings and sesibilities including prejudices of other people with respect and tenderness.