A simple answer to the gay marriage question

The folks who are agitating to have states recognize the legitimacy of gay marriage have a compelling argument: If the state has a legitimate interest in preserving the sanctity of traditional, heterosexual marriage, why doesn't some enterprising lawmaker introduce legislation to ban divorce? Instead, the folks who believe in that interest are agitating to have states ban gay marriage.

From the start I have believed this is an economic issue, not a debate over the right to love whom you love. The unmarried, or rather, those who don't have a state-issued document sanctioning their marriage, have trouble obtaining benefits that are routinely obtained by married people, such as insurance coverage for the person who shares their household. And they want those economic and social benefits.

The private sector is already addressing this concern, of course - I know of several corporations where employees are offered such coverage for their cohabitating mates of either sex. But for one side, it's not happening fast enough - they want the state to make it mandatory. And for the other side, it's happening too fast - so they draft proposed laws and constitutional amendments under which any unmarried couple, gay or straight, would be denied such benefits by law.

The epiphany came to me a few years during a conversation about the issue with a gay co-worker. We suddenly looked at each other and wondered: What legitimate state interest is served by issuing marriage licenses anyway?

After all, marriage is a religious ceremony. If we are indeed a society that separates church and state, what the bejeebers are we doing issuing state licenses to perform religious ceremonies? Sure, now there's a record of who is married to whom, but what legitimate state interest is served by having such a catalog? Near as I can tell, every purpose you can think of (such as authenticating who's eligible for tax breaks or penalties) traces back to an illegitimate function of government anyway.

Repeal the law that requires a state license for a marriage to be considered legitimate. Let the churches decide who can marry whom. Let the marketplace determine the benefits available for married couples or cohabitants. It seems to me that's how a free society operates.

This does not solve the debate over gay marriage, but it does remove the heavy hand of the state from the conversation. And any idea that eliminates government force from the equation is a good idea.