“License” : a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful Merriam-Webster
Why should we need a license to be married anyway? It’s not like it requires some sort of diploma or successful completion of courses at a marriage trade school or something. The ability to fog a mirror is considered to be sufficient qualification.
It may surprise some to learn that we didn’t always have marriage licenses. George Washington didn’t have a marriage license. Neither did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. Before the Civil War there was really no such thing as a marriage license. Governments only got into the business of requiring their permission to be married, in the form of a license, in order to prevent blacks and whites from marrying each other after slavery ended.
From Wikipedia under “marriage license” :
"For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America. But marriage licenses were not required until after the civil war. Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license."
Just as mixed race couples shouldn’t have to seek the government’s approval, neither should same sex couples. Marriages should be left to people’s spiritual homes, be they churches, or whatever fits their own beliefs. The legal aspects could be handled easily by civil-partner contracts for all couples who want them. These contracts would provide all the legal protections of a current marriage license and we would all have the right to enter into such a contract, gay or straight. Actually, civil-partner, or civil-union contracts could be useful for even for couples that want to merge their affairs for non-romantic reasons, such as elderly widowed sisters that live together, which is rather common.
Leaving it to the government to define what is a marriage, then forcing whatever they decide on the rest of us, is what is causing all this acrimony. If the government were to make it official policy that Chevys were better than Fords, and that we should all drive Chevys, then the Ford drivers would be fighting with the Chevy drivers. Wait…they’ve already sort of done that. Well, you get my point.
Why are we allowing such an important cultural decision to be made by the Stephen Sweeneys and Barack Obamas of this world who can “evolve” (or mutate or whatever they want to call it) faster than an influenza virus? Nobody is even saying, except for perhaps Obama himself, that the president’s sudden “evolution” was triggered by anything other than the (most recent) gaffe by Vice-President Joe Biden. The president’s “bold” move on this issue is actually nothing more than political spin and damage control. This is hardly the way to steer a great civilization such as ours.
The only thing most of our leaders care about is getting campaign contributions and winning the next election. So let’s leave how our civilization defines marriage up to our civilization itself and not in the hands of a bunch of mutating, self-serving politicians.
It's all about appeasing the majority and worrying about votes- both losing them or gaining them. Well at least that's what it used to be about; the politician 'working for' the majority, more or less... evolving with cultural and societal demands and changes over time. But for the last 20-30 years or so, politicians have gradually but steadily forgotten who they 'work for' and have taken up the cause *only* for corporations and the 1%-ers. This is the biggest issue now with many people who are unhappy with the way things are today in politics. As for the government's involvement in "marriage" issues, perhaps it would be best for ALL people wishing to partner themselves with another human being, be they elderly widowed sisters, elderly sister and brother, males, females, sexual partners or non-sexual partners -- * any combination * of 2 consenting adults -- to form a "civil union" recognized by government for the purpose of all legalities that will entail, and leave it at that. Leave "Marriage" strictly to the religious institutions and their respective congregation to work out and decide according to their own religious dogma. Being religiously paired should have no bearing either way on legal Civil Unions. Perhaps that is the way to go. Now.
While the marriage bond was recognized by society long before the legal form came into existence, there is a clear state interest in the recognition of marriage as a legal entity. The implications extend far beyond joint ownership of property, responsibility for children, retention of inheritance rights, and any number of other things. Most importantly, the state has a clear interest in strong marriages, and families that arise from strong marriages, since degradation of the traditional family is the primary cause of poverty and poor parenting outcomes.
Hypotheticals have their vital place. But the vital center of this issue is about what is actually happening now. So I wonder if you care to join the growing ranks of your fellow citizens (a small majority now) who favor eliminating the current discriminatory policy (untili your excellent ultimate solution becomes law, whenever that would be)? Also worth mentioning: Your otherwise fine essay would be greatly improved if you didn't abandon its early balance and weight it heavily against the president while putting no pressure on the clearer villains in this story - the politicians who support and even promote our current discriminatory policy. Why only criticism of the President's likely pandering to a humane position? Doesn't it bother your that tons of other politicians are pandering to bigotry?
Sounds like you are saying a union between any 2 adults, even same sex adults should be called a "civil union" or at least something other than "marriage". Leave "Marriage" strictly to religious institutions. That sounds fair. Wouldn't you agree those institutions would probably say a "marriage " is between one man and one woman?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying- as an OPTION to consider. Leave the term and ceremony of "Marriage" to the religious institutions. They (religions) are free to determine what constitutes a "marriage" according to their religious beliefs, and keep the government out of that completely. BUT in order to be fair, *really fair*, EVERY partnered couple, no matter if they are married within a religious setting (or not) shall be considered a "Civil Union" by the government, and get the SAME EXACT benefits and considerations as the couples currently considered "married" today. Also marriages in a religious institution should need to separately apply for, and be documented as a "civil union" in order for the government to recognize the partnered couple. The problem up until this point is that "civil unions" are not treated EXACTLY the same, state to state nor federally, as "marriage" currently is.
OK. That's pretty much what I was saying. Same sex couples should have the same rights EVERYWHERE. Just leave the word "marriage" to those couples who are not the same sex. My main point is that some same sex advocates would not even be happy with what we seem to agree on right here. They are not content to leave traditional marriages alone. They have to have that word. Equal rights is not enough.
However, there's one tiny point I would tweak - You said: "Just leave the word "marriage" to those couples who are not the same sex." I would change that to: "Just leave the word "marriage" to those couples married by CLERGY - no matter WHAT genders make up the couple". Why? Two reasons; 1. SOME churches / clergy DO recognize same-sex marriages and do not have huge issues with gay acceptance. 2. If you're going to separate the religious ceremony from the government recognized "civil union", its got to be separate all the way, no matter who the religious "marriage" covers. In other words, 2 people can get married in a church, temple, synagogue - where ever they do religious services - and they can be man/woman, or not, doesn't matter; BUT the government will not recognize their "marriage" for *any* legal reason or benefit, until they register/apply for CIVIL UNION status. See what I'm saying? I really think it would be very fair that way, don't you?