Canthook

"Imagine your life without marriage. Meaning, not merely your life if you didn't happen to get married. What I am asking you to imagine is life without even the possibility of marriage.

"Re-enter your childhood, but imagine your first crush, first kiss, first date and first sexual encounter, all bereft of any hope of marriage as a destination for your feelings. Re-enter your first serious relationship, but think about it knowing that marrying the person is out of the question."

The Wall Street Journal has, over the decades, been a pretty good source for news, not just of the financial world, but of the world in general. They don't go for the sensational, for the emotional. The Sergeant Joe Friday of the newspapering world, they've never even used multiple-column headlines, or photographs on the front page, much less color photographs, until their recent redesign.

You could always count on three well-researched feature stories each day, sometimes articles of particular interest to the world of commerce and industry, often articles that recognized that financial leaders were interested in having a life, not just making a living.

No comics page. No crossword puzzle. A little humor, in a feature called "Salt and Pepper" that was maybe 4" tall, 6" wide, and it was oriented to the wry smile, not a broad guffaw.

But their editorial page has long been their weak point. Instead of provoking thought and stimulating discussion, the WSJ editorial page has been an unexcited cheerleader for business and industry, and often an apologist for poor business practice. It's not easy to run a great business, and the biggest secret seems to be that treating customers right is highly profitable. It's expensive to acquire customers. Shoddy business practices not only destroy relationships with existing customers, but they discourage others from becoming customers. A company that is well managed turns their existing customers into salesmen, convincing friends, relatives and co-workers to do as they do.

And in the past couple of decades, the WSJ's editorial viewpoint has been to rubberstamp the neo-con agenda, so when I read this endorsement of gay marriage in the Wall Street Journal, I was surprised - and pleased. It's like learning that an old friend has given up smoking. You recognized their life was their own, and you weren't going to hassle them about it, but you're glad to see that they've taking a step for the better.

This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too.

Jonathan Rauch writes in this editorial that California should vote to keep gay marriage legal. I've thought gay marriage should be legal, too, but I've never analysed the case for marriage on a rational basis in the manner that Rauch has. It's been more of a "no skin off my nose; why NOT let them do what they want to" feeling for me, an affirmation of the general rule that in a free country, everything should be allowed unless there's a darned good reason to restrict it.

I'm not backing down on the free country argument, mind you. I still think that's a most important reason to allow gay marriage.

However, it occurs to me that there's an even greater reason. Marriage, unlike a civil union, is a religious sacrament.

We don't have legal recognition of baptism or last rites, and under the first amendment, we ought not. We aren't supposed to be recognizing any religion at all. So why are we recognizing marriage?

We never allowed a wife to serve when the husband gets drafted. We don't allow the husband to perform jury duty when the wife is selected. You can't use your spouse's driver's license instead of getting your own. You can't use your spouse's concealed-carry permit, either.

So why do we recognize marriage? The oddest thing about this is that residents of some states, such as Texas and California, are allowed preferential treatment on federal income taxes because of their state's marriage rules, that residents of other states aren't allowed. It's called "community property".

The 14th amendment requires states give all residents equal protection of the laws; why don't we insist that the federal government treat residents the same, regardless of which state they live in?

At one time, it could be argued that marriage protected the children of the union, but these days, the children have the right to be supported by their gene donors, whether the parents were ever married or not. The only time when bastardy matters - and bastardy is a legal term, folks - is when a will specifies that a bequest be divided among a man's children. Unless he specifies otherwise, only children born within wedlock are included in that terminology.

I suggest that California voters decide to keep gay marriage legal, but as I don't live in California, it's really none of my business. I encourage Pennsylvania to make gay marriage legal, because at this point, it will lead to a booming tourism trade, as people come to Pennsylvania to get hitched. If Pennsylvania waits twenty years to do it, it will be a ho-hum event, and the state will derive a much lesser economic benefit.

It's a lot more socially responsible than trying to attract gamblers' by building casinos. Lovers are better tourists than gamblers, anyhow.

Other Bloggers On These Subjects:
bastardy - constitution - dragnet - editorials - gambling - gay marriage - religious sacrament - tourism - Wall Street Journal