Why the to-do about marriage?

Marriage has usually been about property. Where I am now, a marriage license is issued by the same clerks who handle "documents of writing affecting real property or personal property" in the Finance Divsion of the county government, along with the Assessor and the Collector. The State licenses autos and drivers, the municipalities license pets, marriage is for the County.

Government (composed mainly of clerks) register marriages for the convenience of clerks. Laws give certain rights and duties -- about transmission of property and paying off debts, for example -- to married people, and it is easier to see to it that these are honored if you have a list of names of those whom they apply. There are also public health concerns: knowing who a carrier lives with helps to follow and check the spread of a contagion, And there is the general concern for stability in society, that things stay as much as possible as they are -- and marriage (and the difficulty of getting out of it) help this in at least one area.

Given all this, it is clear that governments would like to see to it that more people are married, especially people who are living together or have children together. And, indeed, there are occasional drives to get cohabitors to marry (though, because unsuccessful, not so many as formerly).

But why then the fuss about homosexual marriages? Surely, it is to the government's advantage to have the information. Given the context in which the government puts marriage, the answer must be that homosexual marriages will cost the government too much. And, indeed, there have been comments -- on the fourth page of the Business section usually -- about how small-business owners will be hurt by increased retirement and health care liabilities, and similar claims about Social Security. But people who claim to be able to predict these things say that these inbalances will quickly be corrected -- as they would be if more cohabitors married or, indeed, if just more employees did. So this does not seem to be a very powerful objection. Nor is it ever treated as one; as noted, it is never the headline. The headlines reveal that the objection stems from something barely mentioned in the government's interest in marriage: sex acts. About all the government says about that topic is a threat of unpleasant consequences to the person in a marriage who has sex with someone outside it (it can create all kinds of paperwork in an inheritance trial, for example). Given that existing homosexual unions seem to be about as monogamous as heterosexual marriages, this does not appear to be much of a problem -- and the routine to deal with it is already well-oiled by current marriages.

Ah, but (significantly) homosexual sex acts are icky (homophobia is coprophobia by proxy?). But most people, those who watch porn on their computers, know that some folks find this act stimulating and that heterosexual couples engage in it (at least, the law says, the right people are doing it together). Nor do all homosexuals do it all the time -- indeed, some don't ever. So, the mere possibility of icky acts (we are not -- any longer at least -- going to check) does not seem a valid reason for preventing homosexual marriages. We allow others where that -- and probably far worse -- sex acts occur. And in the broad range of activities covered by even this small area of government, much ickier things happen and, indeed, are ordered to happen (had your septic tank pumped lately?).

But this icky act is a sin! So is divorce (and more explicitly than any sex act) and much pawnbroking, both of which are carried out or licensed by the government. And, of course, talk of sin has no play in discussion of government activities.

But this would be blessing sin in a sacred institution. And here we have it! The opponent of homosexual marriage has confused a civil marriage -- two people's deed to one another -- with some religious -- or at least spiritual -- entity. Or even two: a ceremony and a state of life. Of course, using the same word for all of them aids the confusion. But a civil marriage is quite independent the others as they are of one another: you can have one without the other any way you want.

How this confusion comes about -- and is exploited by various people (to what purpose I can't quite figure out) -- is the next topic (forthcoming)