Sunday, June 4, 2006
marriage amendment
In a republic as diverse as ours, I wonder whether a national amendment on something as personal and cultural as a definition of marriage is a good idea. I mean, if two people want to try something so precarious and fraught with difficulties, why not let them go for it and wish them luck? For me, it doesn't matter whether one calls alliances 'marriages' or 'unions', but patently it does matter - a lot - to some people on both the "I want it" and the "over my dead body" sides. From a governmental point of view, I thought allowing states to encourage and retain their own rules and cultures was the reason for the clever federal system that the founding fathers designed, so why involve the national government? And then there's another question: if it matters so much to some people to live together and call it married, what difference does it make to anyone else, really? I mean, if Bob and Jane are miserable and cheat on each other, and Ellen and Tom are blissful, the condition of one marriage has no effect on the legality or anything else of the other one, right? So why not be married or live together, or not, or whatever, as people want to? What skin is off my or your back, when it comes down to it? Besides, a rose by any other name is still a rose, isn't it?
Labels: people
Post a Comment