Jake on Prop 8

This year's elections may be over and (most) races already decided, but that doesn't stop me. There is an issue out there that seems to be confusing people. It is only confusing because people are dead set on ignoring the First Amendment. What is that one again?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Separation of Church and State! This whole business concerning the legality of gay marriages is quite simple once you get religion out of the picture.

Churches are free to do as they please concerning marriage. If a given church wishes to restrict marriage to one man and one woman it is their prerogative to do so. If sects like the Mormons and Islam want to allow men to have more than one wife, no problem.

So what business does government have in affairs of matrimony? Business, indeed. A legal marriage is a merger between individuals that gives the power to make decisions concerning the shared assets of those involved in the merger. They also share in the liabilities. If the merger ends prematurely (before 'death do us part') it is a court of law, not a religious authority, that oversees the disbursement of assets and liabilities.

From a legal vantage point that assumes the First Amendment says exactly what it says and that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, a legal marriage is a business contract for households. The business of running the household is conducted as a joint venture following agreed upon guidelines such as any laid out in a prenup.

Since it is a specialized business contract, the number and gender of the parties is irrelevant. To declare otherwise is contrary to laws guaranteeing that government agencies can not discriminate based on gender (among many other wonderful things). If two men wish to merge households the government is not granted the power to deny them a contract. If three women desire to merge households the same is true. If three women and two men wanted to form a merger I see no reason why it should be denied.

If two men, three women and a goat wished to marry, it would be denied because the goat is not a legal citizen with protected rights. That is where we need to be focusing our energy.

Equal Rights for Goats!

I did not run this by my lawyer prior to posting so I could be wrong. When elected you'll find out just how right I was.