This weekend I was having lunch with a friend and we were talking about relationships. We discussed how many people our age don’t see marriage as a necessity even when they have been in long-term relationships. I asked him if he ever thought he would get married. I was surprised when he answered that he had already been married and was now divorced.
That revelation alone wasn’t surprising per se. It was only surprising because I had known him since he was 23 and had never known him to date anyone for more than a few months. This meant he was married and divorced very young. He explained to me that when he was in graduate school he had a friend who became ill. She did not have health insurance and he did, so they went down to the courthouse and got married. The process took only a few minutes and within a couple weeks she was included on his employer’s healthcare benefits. About a year and a half later, after she was well again, they got divorced just as quickly and unceremoniously as they had united.
One could argue that what they did was dishonest and a rip off. But the object of their deception was a health insurance provider. Health insurance companies may well be the face of evil, dishonesty, fraud, and greed. I have a hard time seeing them as victims. Whatever one concludes about these actions ethically they are inarguably legal. My friend and his ex-wife broke no laws.
For obvious reasons this conversation made me think about civil marriage and healthcare reform. An unemployed and ill woman could not get the treatment she needed until she married someone with private health insurance. Two people who never intended to spend their lives together, never lived in the same home, and were not romantically involved were able to obtain a marriage license with no questions asked. A system built on profit rather than the care of people could be scammed easily and legally. You could say my friends should not have done what they did. I could just as easily have said they should not have had to do what they did.
In every other industrialized nation the government provides healthcare. Those who argue that universal healthcare would put a bureaucrat between patients and their doctors haven’t visited a doctor’s office lately. Insurance companies refuse to provide coverage for the most basic things and a medical problem is the quickest way for even the most careful budgeters to find themselves in financial ruin.
Besides that, civil marriage is just a contract with governmental recognition. It does not require love or commitment or even the blending of two lives. It requires two people to sign a piece of paper in front of a city employee. Opponents of same sex CIVIL marriage argue all sorts of whacky things like Bible verses and God’s view of a doomed nation. But they don’t understand that their religious and moral understanding of marriage has nothing to do with government recognition.
If your church doesn’t want to perform or recognize gay unions that is fine. If you think Linda and Sue are sinful for devoting their lives to each other then you are entitled to your opinion. But don’t pretend civil marriage laws are necessary to uphold your personal views on religion, morality, and love. Two strangers can get married and God never has to be mentioned.
The Peter Labarbera’s of the world think what makes their marriage significant is government recognition. How romantic for their wives. The civil contract doesn’t make two people love each other and it does not guarantee self-sacrifice or commitment. There is no good reason why two people of the same gender cannot enter into a government recognized contract but people of opposite sexes can. The only reason anyone ever argues is based on personal religious views, which have nothing to do with government recognition or civil law.
The key defect among members of the religious right is an inability to understand the difference between public and private, civil and religious. You don’t want the government in your personal and religious business. You do want the government to treat people equally in terms of civil law. Conflating the sacred with the civil undermines this distinction. A partner for life is not a partner for life because of a contract and love is not delegated from city hall.
At the heart of these matters are larger principles that get overlooked. We want everyone in a free society to have basic access to necessities. We want the government to treat people fairly and stay out of the more personal aspects of our lives. Regardless of whatever hot button issue is being discussed, these principles hold true.
Comments