Of late my political interests have focused on consistency instead of right and wrong. I believe it is in consistency where fairness and objectivity appears.
My consistency has lead me to realize that my government, the U.S. Government, does not determine whether or not I am married. If the government were to collapse I would still consider myself married. If my wife and I moved to another country which does not recognize our legal marriage, we would still consider ourselves married.
The problem is that the word “marriage” is not the best term to explain what the government is regulating. I propose the need to strike the word “marriage” from the vocabulary of the government and replace it with civil union.
We already have a number of civil unions in place which the government respects. Having a power of attorney, an ombudsman, a court appointed attorney, are all civil unions. A civil union in those cases does not take gender into consideration. If you do not want a civil union, the court will appoint one for you. If you were on life support at a hospital with no family available to make decisions, the government would appoint a medical power of attorney, a temporary civil union.
I believe civil unions will eventually come to fruition as the defining term of a legal bond between two consenting adults, but I also hope private institutions are left alone to have their own definitions of marriage. As I said earlier, the government does not decide if I am married. I choose my religious institution for that matter. According to my religion my wife and I are married, and that is what matters most to me.
Question: Do you want the government out of your life but regulating someone else’s?