Some suggest government should get out of the marriage business. Leave it to churches and wedding chapels and others to run the business of marriages, for it is no business of government to do so.
But, I do see a negative in divorcing government from the marriage business. That which encourages the lifelong commitment between a man and a woman is a plus. My thought is that having the government extending marriage licenses does increase the commitment level.
Strengthening marriage? This is one thing we can do to strengthen the institution of marriage.
The idea of having couples exchange vows of fidelity is a good one, whenever society came upon it and however long it has existed. A commitment verbalized is a commitment more likely to happen.
And, simply, the contract does gain strength with the level of the authority of the party issuing it. The higher the issuing authority, the more weight it has with the couple. To have government as an issuing authority does add to the commitment level (and therefore the strength) of the marriage.
I think we subtract from the importance we can give marriage when we subtract government. And, I do not understand why it should be wrong for government to be an issuing authority and yet, instead, it should be quite alright for Jonathan Anybody down the street to be that authority. You cheapen the value of the contract and therefore the commitment level when you say anybody and everybody can issue the license as long as it be not the government. Government is one of the most authoritative sources. Jonathan Anybody is not. His being the issuer contributes little weight. Government's being the issuer adds great weight.
No comments:
Post a Comment