The ever-evolving concept of marriage

It’s been more than two weeks since America elected its first African American president, and the excitement is still running high. But that wasn’t the only major story to develop on Election Day. A hotly contested ballot initiative to squash gay marriage in California was also approved, and gay rights supporters are not taking the defeat quietly.

Perhaps they should have seen it coming. Numerous states (including Georgia) have put “Defense of Marriage” amendments to their constitutions on the ballot in recent election cycles and they generally pass by solid margins. It seems clear that a majority of Americans are not ready to extend full marriage rights to gay couples, though that majority does appear to be shrinking, especially among younger folks.

Supporters of the California initiative advanced their case using an argument that has become ubiquitous in these campaigns. Marriage has been a sacred bond between one man and one woman since the dawn of human history, they say, and those who seek to extend marital recognition to gay couples are on a crusade to tear down this pillar of our moral foundation.

It’s a powerful argument, but as we all should have learned in our high school social studies classes, it’s not a very accurate one.

The fact is that the restriction of marriage to one man and one woman is a relatively recent social convention. For a very long time, the standard practice in many societies was for marriage to be a sacred contract between one man and as many wives as he could afford to support. For examples of widely practiced polygamy one need only crack open the Old Testament, where it is reported to have been practiced by many important spiritual figures and is never expressly condemned or forbidden.

But some would argue that polygamy is an ancient practice that has rightly been tossed on the scrap heap of history and that marriage has been recognized by right-thinking persons as a one man/one woman proposition at least since the founding of our great nation. And that is true, but even in the US it is misleading to say that the concept of marriage has been a static one.

Until a Supreme Court decision in 1967 struck them down, numerous states (including Georgia) had laws on the books that made it a crime for white people to marry anyone outside of their race. The fact is that even in America, and even in relatively recent times, the concept of who should be allowed to marry has evolved over time, and most of us would even agree that is a not a bad thing.

But is it time for marriage to be radically redefined once again to accommodate same-sex couples? Frankly the libertarian in me wonders if that is really the question we should be asking ourselves. Maybe the question we ought to be asking is whether or not it is a good idea to rely on the government to decide which unions God does or does not sanction.

I wonder if it is time that we draw a bright line between the civil and the religious aspects of marriage. Maybe a couple looking to build a life together should have the option to engage in a strictly civil union, or be joined together in a religious ceremony, or to do both – separately.

That would leave the debate over which unions God does or does not sanction to the church and the individual, and the debate over which unions the state should recognize to the government and the voting public. It seems like a logical solution to me, but it is probably a non-starter because it fails to appeal to the irrational, emotional side of people that usually takes over all decision making faculties around election time, and at most other times for that matter.

And so, I now return you to the competing chants of “We demand our civil rights!” and “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” that will surely entertain you in the months and years to come. Enjoy.

Local governments know how to spend big too

I have recently come to the conclusion that I could never be a successful politician. There just seems to be a stark difference between the way I see reality and the way the people who run our government see it. And that is particularly true when it comes to financial matters.

Being the simple, non-sophisticated type that I am, I would naturally assume that when you are managing the budget of some municipal body you’d use a lot of the same principles that you’d use to manage a family budget. I would be careful that I was not spending a lot more than I was taking in. I’d research major purchases thoroughly before committing funds to them. And when tough times hit, I’d tighten my belt and learn to get by on less money to avoid digging myself into a bigger hole.

But that kind of small-minded thinking obviously has no place in government. It’s easy to see that at the national level as evidenced by the eye-popping deficits we run each year, but there are good examples of how local politicians like to “make it rain” with our tax money as well.

This week Houston County residents passed a referendum that will raise our property taxes to fund a new hazard warning system. The new tax is expected to generate about $1.8 million, a figure that was initially calculated as what it would cost to purchase sirens that could be heard by 95% of county residents. However, some time ago it was decided that a system that depended on sirens alone would be inadequate, and currently there is no definitized plan on exactly what the county is going to purchase with that money.

Had I been in the loop on this, I would have suggested that the government decide on exactly what kind of system they were going to buy and how much that system would cost before I proposed any tax increase. What is the old saying about buying a pig in a poke? But we’re trusting types in Houston County, and we obviously don’t mind handing over our money in hopes that our representatives will find something good to spend it on.

For another example of forward-thinking economics we turn to Centerville, where the city government held the first of a series of meetings this week to explain to citizens why they think it would be a good idea to raise their property taxes a whopping 27 percent.

Many angry citizens filled council chambers to express their displeasure with the potential tax increase, which comes at a time when citizens are suffering the effects of the worst economic downturn in a generation. Patient city leaders calmly explained to their constituents that even though city is not currently running a deficit they need more money from them to fund things like infrastructure improvements and “promoting downtown businesses.”

Puzzled business owners who attended the meeting seemed confused by the concept of promoting business by raising property taxes on businesses, and many attendees strongly encouraged city leaders to look for ways to cut costs in lieu of raising taxes on cash-strapped citizens. I personally live in Centerville, and based on my non-scientific polling of average citizens I’d say that sentiment is pretty widely shared.

And that’s just too bad. Centerville residents need to catch the same spirit that voters who approved the disaster warning system obviously tapped into. It’s the spirit that says to government, “take my money - I trust you’ll find something good to spend it on.”

Personally, I don’t think I could adequately represent people who are that generous with their money and that trusting of their government to spend it responsibly. Maybe a lot of my neighbors feel the same way. After all, when was the last time an incumbent got turned out of office around here?