NEW CASTLE —
Excitement raged across the political spectrum last week when President Obama came out in support of gay marriage.
I yawned.
The news didn’t strike me as particularly dramatic. Even though Obama had, in the past, said he opposed gay marriage, there were ample signs his stance was shifting.
But what really makes this news less than momentous is the fact a president doesn’t have much authority where marriage is concerned. Traditionally, marriage is a state matter, not a federal one.
For instance, North Carolina’s vote last week that rejected gay marriage, civil unions and the like carries far more legal weight than Obama’s comments.
What Obama’s statement managed to do, however, was open the floodgates on campaign contributions. By all accounts, money is pouring into Obama’s campaign coffers as a result of his position change. Similarly, organizations opposed to gay marriage are raking in big bucks in reaction to the president’s statement.
That’s invariably what happens with these hot-button issues. And the politicians and their strategists know it.
In the aftermath of Obama’s announcement, analysts speculated about the political risks of the move. My guess is that folks strongly opposed to gay marriage had no plans to vote for Obama anyway. And those on the other side were almost sure to support him. The only change is the influx of money into the system from the gullible on the right and left.
That cash will be used to curry favor during the campaign with everyone else.
So what we are seeking is another flare up in America’s marriage wars. We can expect to see these continue so long as there is money to be made from them.
In fact, there is a very simple, practical and desirable resolution available to end America’s marriage wars. But pursuing it would turn off the money valve. So instead, the ideologues continue to clash.
To end the battles over this issue, we need to recognize marriage has both secular and sacred purposes in our society. From government’s perspective, marriage is a contract, much like a business partnership, which spells out matters such as joint ownership of property and other issues that promote social stability and predictability.
For various reasons, it is in society’s interest to promote stable, secure and contractual relationships between committed individuals, regardless of gender.
Conversely, churches sanction marriage as part of a larger religious mission. Marriage here is not just about the relationship between partners, but also with the church and God.
So when we seek to meld these two different interests in marriage into a single institution, the problems we have now arise.
This is why we should change marriage laws. States should stop issuing marriage licenses and instead authorize contracts that deal in nothing more than matters of law. These arrangements would bind couple legally, but would not be marriages.
Instead, a marriage would be a status confirmed by a church. Each religion would have its own rules regarding marriage. A church could allow gay marriage or not. It could impose other standards as well.
But a marriage would be a spiritual arrangement only. It would carry no legal weight. If a couple with a church-sanctioned marriage wants the force of civil law to protect their arrangement, they also would have to sign separate contracts with the state.
This system would protect the interests of church, state and individuals. It would end the marriage wars by formally dividing the roles of government and religion.
But don’t expect it to happen anytime soon. So long as millions of Americans are willing to pay for the pleasure of butting heads over marriage, the status quo will persist.
(Contact Mitchel Olszak at (724) 654-6651, extension 628, or e-mail him at nceditor@ncnewsonline.com.)
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Politics of marriage makes lots of money
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
-
Mitchel Olszak: CBS practices censorship to protect its interests
When it comes to integrity in the field of broadcasting, few can challenge the standing of CBS. Since the days of radio, this organization has stood out in its commitment to tough-minded, serious journalism. From Edward R. Murrow to Walter Cronkite to the current crop of reporters on “60 Minutes,” CBS has built a reputation no entity can match.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
