Wir sind bettler. Hoc est verum.

I am going to deviate from my typical topics to address a more political, cultural topic, so bear with me.

As many of you know, in California the people voted to keep the definition of marriage (what it has always been) as between only a man and a woman; the courts (one judge in particular) has overturned it.

Now my question is this: just because the state defines something, does it really make it so? I mean, what can, and can’t the state define?

Let me give you an example. Let us say that I filled out all the forms for the state, that changes my sex from male to female. So now, essentially, the state says I am female, well am I? No, of course not, I am still male, no matter what the forms, or the state says about it. Well I was thinking, is marriage like that? Or is it just something, like driving, which the state can define (the state can say whether I am a licensed driver or not).

So, is marriage something the state (or the government for that matter) defines, or is it something “above” them, which they just recognize. Let me go back to the the sex change. The state doesn’t wait for me to be born, and then define what sex I am, they recognize what sex I am and then record that, and as a side note then they give me special privileges and responsibilities based on my sex (like which bathroom I am allowed to go in).

I don’t know all the legal mumbo-jumbo, but let me put forth a scenario. When our country was first created (or any country for that matter) were any marriages recognized? Of course, no country when it first starts, asks every “married” couple to go get “remarried” under their laws (perhaps for a few, but not all), no they recognize most marriages. Now the question may be asked why.

Well I can think of a few reasons why they would recognize the marriages, one must be because another government, which this government recognizes as a legitimate government, recognizes the marriage as valid. So, on the one hand this means our government recognizes some marriages because another government recognizes them. Ok, well why does that other government recognize them, you see where I am going, at some point we have to get to the origin of where the marriage is recognized (not because of prior recognition) but because of direct and first recognition.

So what causes the first government to recognize the marriage. To answer this we must understand it from a little different point of view.

Let us go back to a time when there were no “governments” per-say, and only small tribes or families spread out. We know that people have been getting “married” since the beginning of known history, but what was it considered then? It seems that there are a few things that are the same of every marriage, thus we discover the true definition of marriage across time and nations.

1. It is between a male and female of responsible age.

2. They are committing to each other and before witnesses, to have a unique and special relationship between them that they wish to be recognized by other people.

3. The other people (society) recognizes their commitment as valid and sincere.

4. Religious societies (most) seem to all agree that marriage was instituted by a God.

My point is that people were getting married before there were any “official” governments to affirm such a marriage, usually the marriage was affirmed by close family and friends, and eventually tribes and towns. People didn’t make a private commitment to each other, but if able (not stranded on a desert island) they made a public commitment to each other. The public recognized their commitment, and allowed them to live together, and, if possible, have children and raise a family.

It seems that history teaches us that governments, and society really do not as much define marriage (although they do sometimes put some boundaries on what they will accept as valid) as they recognize it. Marriage is something that exists outside of society, and above it, thus society attempts to understand this institution and thus discern between true and valid marriage and shams trying to pass as marriage. Where we get confused in understanding societies role, I think, is the benefits that society (government) gives to married people. It isn’t usually just the case that a government just recognizes a marriage as valid, but they usually also give special benefits to it, and here because society is attempting to define valid marriage opposed to invalid “marriage” and encourage the one and not the other, we think society actually creates marriage.

Now lets stop and think about this. Why would society (government) want to give special benefits to one type of relationship, and not to others? Is it because they just decided to do it willy-nilly? No, I do not think so. Rather I would argue that the reason most societies give special rights, protections, and privileges to married couples is because they recognize that marriage is the foundation of families, and families are the foundation of society. They have rightly realized that if they didn’t sanction, protect, and promote true and legitimate marriages, they would only be harming the very fabric and foundation of their existence and health.

In other words, society doesn’t create marriage, marriage creates society, and society rightfully protects and blesses her mother (or else she is a fool).

The problem I see with California at this moment, is that she is attempting (against her people’s wishes) to give credit, sanction, blessing, and protection to a type of relationship (which she wishes to call marriage) which has neither birthed her, nor nourished her. It is like a child who is raised by the best kind of parents, who then goes on to succeed greatly in the world and become extremely wealthy, who then turns around and spits the credit and reward of his success with his parents and some complete strangers from across town.

Can you see what is wrong with this picture? California is attempting to reward and protect a relationship that is not her birth parents, just because it seems like the fair and nice thing to do. She has forgotten the reason why society even recognizes and protects marriage in the first place (and why it by nature defined as between a man and a woman), and is now trying to now declare that it is society all along which truly defines what marriage is, and not the nature of things since the beginning.

So now I return to my original question. If society says that you are married, does it mean you really are? Does this mean I can marry my dog just because society says so? Does this mean I can marry my house just because society says I can?

Marriage is something that is never really defined only by society (although society attempts to discern between valid marriage and impostors), true marriage is defined by deeper, more transcendent and universal properties then any one government or society. True marriage will always be defined, ultimately, as between a man and a woman, because it must for the sake of society, and because that is just how it is, and always has been, and must always be if society wants to exist.