The State’s Interest in Marriage

I’ve been thinking a lot about California’s Proposition 8, which would amend our state Constitution (the Constitution!) to remove the right for some people to marry. Aside from all the scare tactics by the supporters, which are ridiculous given the rights already protected by our Federal Constitution, here’s one way I think Prop 8 is wrong.

First of all, and fundamentally, the State (any state) should not have an interest in marriage. If you think the state does have an interest, then you should ask why. There are only two reasons I can think of that a state would want to be involved in something as personal as this:
1. the State wants to collect revenue by taxing licenses; and
2. the State wants to create more citizens, which increases its tax base
In the case of #2, then it follows that the State would then disallow the prevention of conception, as was denied several years ago in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut.

So, it follows that, if the State gets involved in regulating marriage, then here’s what else it should do, according to the State’s goal of increasing citizens:
* outlaw contraception
* outlaw divorce
* outlaw abortions
* outlaw procedures to decrease or eliminate fertility

I also am assuming that, if parents have divorced already, they probably will have to resume living together in order to help raise the kids, and create more. While this sounds pretty extreme, it is pretty close to the plot of the Handmaid’s Tale .

When you vote tomorrow, think of how much you want the State involved in your life, and your life decisions. If you don’t think it sounds like a good idea, then you should vote no on Prop 8.