Following Up On Ashburn - State and Marriage

The middle of this month, the Los Angeles Times printed an interview between columnist Patt Morrison and Republican California State Senator Roy Ashburn, who was outed after drunk driving. Until then, Ashburn had a history of voting against things like marriage neutering. I’m finally getting around to commenting on a few parts of that interview.

I truly believe the conservative philosophy as embraced by Goldwater: that the government has no role in the private lives of the citizens.

I know that there is a lot of talk about what people ought not do in their private lives, but most marriage defending commentators and politicians and I know of, if they identify as Republicans or conservatives, want government out of the private lives of citizens. As such there are things we think are immoral or destructive but we don’t want to outlaw them. Of course, nor do we want to be on the hook financially for what we see as the sins of others. I don't want to stop two men from living together and considering themselves married and asking others to consider them married. I believe they should be free to do that. However, I recognize that state marriage licensing is not a private matter.

And that gets into...

When it comes to marriage, I'm getting the feeling that you're mulling over whether government ought to be in the marriage license business at all.

It's a very complicated issue, marriage, but it seems to me that the government's role is to protect a civil contract, whether it's to purchase a home together, enter into whatever financial or legal arrangement, including marriage. The whole issue of marriage as a 5,000-year-old tradition, a religious context, a historical context - what government's role is, is the sanctification of the legal bond. Then it seems to me a matter for a church or some other societal organization but not for government.

In the USA, government and church are two distinct entities, and as such we don't give churches the power to settle property disputes, determine custody and child support issues, or alimony. The state has an interest in marriage, in large part because it usually involves children, who do not consent to the arrangement. When it comes to these issues, adoption, inheritance, and others, the state should make a distinction between marriage and nonmarriage. Should a friend who takes to crashing in an spare bedroom of my house have the same rights as my wife should I die, especially without a will?

It was my choice to keep it secret; it was my choice to be a gay man and be married and have children. It was my choice to build a life on lies in order to conceal myself. That obviously had a big effect on my marriage and my children in ways that I don't fully comprehend, but it's my responsibility and not something to be talked about in interviews.

I'm glad he says he takes responsibility. It appears to a lot of people that he used his family to further his political career – which a lot of heterosexual politicians do as well. In any case, it isn't right. I hope his problems with alcohol are left in the past, if for nobody else's sake but his own.

Previously: Letter Writer Gets it Right