My Nine Husbands

My Nine Husbands
By: The Speaker in the House
Claudia Roazen

Maine recently defeated a homosexual marriage law that was enacted by our State Legislature, obviously without voter approval. It was promoted as a civil rights issue by those for Gay marriage and an education fear issue (that gay sex would be taught in schools to our young children) by those against, in the recent voter campaign. I do not think the voters were persuaded by either specious argument when they chose to keep marriage to its long history of tradition.
The real question should be is marriage a civil right or a civil privilege? I know my husband is privileged but I’m wondering that if I have a right to be married why then I needed a license and a blood test to marry. Driving is a privilege not a right which is why the State can require standards. Therefore if marriage is a right then why is the State allowed to screen my blood and require that I am not related to my intended spouse? My right to marry whomever and as many of whomever I desire should be without State rules and regulations to hamper, diminish or deny me my marriage civil right, even if it is with Mr. Wrong. Then that must mean that the State views marriage as a civil privilege to which it can set standards of acceptance and approval and or deny approval. I wonder why they don’t revoke marriage licenses as they do the licenses of bad drivers. (Come on, on a bad marriage day you have thought of it too!) “Sorry Dear… but the State has suspended our marriage, so until further notice you are welcome to stay in the room above the garage for a nominal fee.”
The State requires you to get a marriage license but when your marriage is once performed and properly witnessed then they issue you a marriage certificate. A certificate is a paper reflecting a truth of certified fact. You receive a birth certificate which verifies the fact of your identity, you receive a diploma which certifies the fact that you have earned a degree but you never earn a driving certificate. The State thus confuses the issue by making marriage a privilege before you marry and a certified fact after your married. Marriage is not an inherent right or people would be allowed to marry their pets or even inanimate objects like say a boulder. (Then you could honestly say that your relationship was as solid as a rock.)
Therefore the whole argument that homosexuals have a right to marry say over polygamists or any other non-traditional groups is not just opening the barn door for marriage to become a civil right but the State would no longer be able to justify any guidelines at all. It could not allow gays but disallow polygamy. (I wonder if women would like to have eight or nine husbands like the Mormon men use to have in wives. I think we would enjoy it but not for sex and or variety but more to get all the chores done around the house.) If marriage is an intrinsic civil right then no one could be denied taking union with anyone, in any number or anything. If marriage is a privilege then the State has the right to set a single standard and deny all else. The real secret is that the State wants to keep marriage as it is defined for two primary reasons one; the State realized long ago that supporting marriage was financially beneficial as most citizens with families were more productive and therefore more taxable, two; the state relies heavily on the religious institutions and churches to handle the majority of their clerical functions. The pastors, priests, rabbis’ and ministers provide procedural information to the engaged couple as well as witnessing and then filing the proper paperwork to the proper jurisdiction. If the State had to perform all marriages in this country there would be a long waiting list and or if certain religious institutions refused to officiate State marriage papers, a lot of couples would be married by their churches but unknown to the State creating a nightmare breakdown of an already overloaded Family Court system.
Civil Union was the option created to appease the inequity created by federal joint tax filing and family health insurance and other (so called marriage benefits) denied to same sexed couples. Separate legislation could fix any and all so-called inequities. Why is Civil Union not good enough? Why is there a push for changing the marriage definition? One must wonder what Gay Rights agenda is really all about? Some say it is to proselytize our children about the normality of homosexuality but maybe it runs deeper than that? Maybe it is to get the State out of social lawmaking completely taking a libertarian view, in which all social engagements should be outside government control.
If that is the case then I do ... and I do and I do… (Repeat six more times) whimsically think my nine husbands would come in very handy. Gosh when I think of it... I could marry a super wealth guy, a doctor, a car mechanic, a hairdresser, a fashion designer, a butcher, a baker, a chef and still keep my husband. Oh what the heck let’s add a lawyer and make it a simple ten count, because if thing don’t work out with some of these guys then I’ll need number ten’s services.