(I'm not done with this post, but I'll revise it when I have more time.)
I decided to vote 'no' on the Florida "Marriage Protection" Amendment 2. In so deciding, I think I'm going to 'think out loud' on two main thoughts that others may find helpful. My first concern is the legitimate place (Property & Progeny) for the government in defining 'marriage' at all; the second addresses my concerns as a Christian (Widows & Orphans).
Property & Progeny
Don't some people change the subject when discussing Amendment 2 and laws defining 'marriage'? My impression is that we are unintentionally clouding the issues for voters by confusing issues appropriate to the government and the law with other important ideas that don't have much to do with either one.There's a reason that the term 'married couples' is often synonymous with 'household'. Historically, romance and sex have had very little to do with civic ideas of marriage; in fact, those ideas were joined together fairly recently in both social practice and the law. Marriage has always been more prevalent among the wealthy, who were concerned with cleanly passing control of property from one generation to the next. Even today, young people tend to marry when they want to 'settle down', i.e. to buy a house or have children together. With changes in income and the advent of effective birth control, Floridians marry later in life if they marry at all; many young people stay for years with relatives, 'shack up' with a lover, or live with roommates until their late 20s. Discussions of the religious dimensions of matrimony tend more to obscure than illuminate the issues we face as voters.
The state's legitimate concerns in defining 'marriage' are regulation of property* and progeny.
The former is important because of taxes. We tax real estate, personal property, businesses, etc. Establishing kinship relationships either through blood (birth certificates) or social contracts (marriage licenses, divorce decrees, probate of wills) is important in determining who is responsible to pay what taxes. Florida also has legitimate interests in those who cannot support themselves, and all minor children fall into this category. The taxpayer cares for them when no one else does, in addition to the elderly, those once called 'feeble-minded', the infirm, and those who are unable to support themselves because of addiction or other mental illnesses. This is expensive, and the state has an interest in regulating relationships in order to shift these responsibilities to individuals.
Our legal and tax structures are set up around the typical household. Some want the structure to reflect the diverse arrangements that our citizens live, while others want to promote a proven model social structures that successfully raises competent adults. So, we should stop screaming at each other and recognize that the argument is between realists and idealists.
There's no objection on the property issues: no one seems to want to deny anyone rights of kinship for owning property, for powers of attorney-type issues in health care, etc. The objections center on the claim that some households are not suitable for raising children. Finally, the state mandates education in order to have a trained workforce and capable electorate. Values will always be taught implicitly in our schools, since understanding history, civics, and our laws always involves teaching the our ideals: the American dream.
In reading the amendment, my impression is that many quasi-marriage arrangements will be affected that already lack minimal protection under the law; the text is designed specifically to bar homosexual couples from enjoying the rights and privileges of kinship. Younger people seem to be less concerned about regularizing homosexual couples than their elders.
Our laws about marriage date from the period when birth control was uncommon and ineffective when it wasn't illegal. When I started working just before the feminist movement, it was very difficult for females to support themselves. women were more likely to refuse to have sex and risk bearing children to those who would not support their kids.
Our kinship and household laws so locating those who abdicate their responsibilities to them at state expense.
Defining 'marriage' is important to the state of Florida because they need to find taxpayers to pay taxes and criminals who abandon their responsibilities to taxpayers' expense.
Widows and Orphans
Being rich--i.e. our decisions are 'what or where shall we eat?' instead of 'will we eat today?'--we sometimes make snap decisions out of innocent, well-meaning ignorance that hurt the poor and vulnerable. Christians should consider the effect of any law on 'widows and orphans' in the Biblical sense.
The ancient Biblical theocracy--a government like Iran, where the laws of the religion are the laws of the courts--used 'widows and orphans' to describe those most likely to be the poor. When we hear those words today, the image in our mind's eye should be single parents, citizens with special needs, the elderly, children (whether currently living in traditional homes or not), and the chronically ill.
Historically, those most likely to be married have always been the wealthy. The same is true today. Many citizens live in common law relationships rather than in households licensed by the state. Marriages, divorces, and adoptions cost money and our poorest neighbors often forgo all three.
Children today often live with both natural parents for only a brief period because more are born out of wedlock, adults marry later in life when they do marry, and our country has a high divorce rate. Many families' individual members are neither tied by blood, nor protected by law. Elderly widows dependent upon their first husband's pension can't remarry; some of the 2nd relationships last longer than the first legal marriage.
I think more people will be hurt by the wording in this amendment that I did at first. Passing Amendment 2 may do more harm to our families than good.
We can rarely do just one thing. The amendment's language is very broad, and voters can't easily see all of the consequences of formalizing the definition.
Florida has a legitimate interest in making sure that the next generation of citizens, our children, are raised to be healthy and well-educated taxpayers, and the question of who pays their bills is important since the state has to when no one else can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Yes, I know: laws about kids have an ownership component so it's all just property. Well, some nations of the world still let men own their wives, too, and even though we changed most of our laws in the U.S. with women's suffrage and the feminist movement, I don't mean to imply that there aren't more than a few remaining items on women's agenda.
