Paul Ibrahim’s column this week addresses the issue of gay marriage and argues the following point:
The necessary alternative is evident: Government has no business being in the marriage business at all, straight or gay, monogamous or polygamous. Government should only enforce contracts, but should not and cannot otherwise give value to the most private and sacred of ceremonies and relationships.
But what is the significance of a “marriage,” then? Ibrahim defines it as a contractual relationship:
What about long-standing marital benefits? Well, almost all of these benefits could be contracted for. For example, any group of people – whether they be cousins, friends or romantically involved – should be able to contract for hospital visitation rights. The contracts would be enforced by the government, as other contracts are, but they would be written by individuals into whose relationship the government has no business intruding.
I agree with Ibrahim’s points, and I think this would not be an all-together unreasonable solution to the gay marriage debate, but I don’t believe that the government does not have the obligation to stick its nose into certain types of relationships. There is no reason that the government should not protect individuals from entering compromising relationships, especially in the case of children or others who are clearly not in a position of making sound decisions on their own. Luckily, Ibrahim does clear up this point: “The government, however, does have a limited role of protecting children, who largely lack the capacity of calculated decision-making.” As long as the government’s role remains confined to contract enforcement and preventing the use of force (in this case, the abuse of children), I am all for this “solution” to the gay marriage debate.
