Vt. Is Too Much
Interested in Sex

In preparing myself for the upcoming debate over gay marriage in Vermont, it occurs to me that our current system of marriage and civil unions is unfair to anyone who wants to have a union other than an "Ozzie and Harriet" style nuclear family. We are not all equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to marriage.

The root of this unfairness is that all three branches of government want to maintain some sort of control over what kind of sexual relations people are having. Gay marriage won't change that a bit. You still won't be able to have a state-sanctioned union without some kind of sexual litmus test. If you aren't interested in a heterosexual or homosexual union, but are just friends or relatives, don't apply.

It's both prurient and weird that the state assumes, or cares, that people they join together are going to have sex. The only legitimate interest of the state in the union of two people is to create a strong and productive bond that will benefit society. Therefore, the state should sanction any sort of union that makes people more socially, financially and emotionally stable and that works in the interest of any children that are involved.

Where does that leave marriage then? Let religious groups and other non-governmental agencies marry whom they please, and keep it free of politics and legalese. If the state doesn't want close relatives making babies, then pass a law to that effect. People who impregnate their daughters, cousins or whatever are rarely interested in marrying them.

Let's get marriage out of our legislature, our statutes and our courts. If your marriage is sanctioned by God and the church, then if the state wants to call it a civil union, that doesn't diminish it's significance to you or God or the church one bit.

Doesn't that sound more sensible than continually arguing about who's having sex with whom?

Peter Magoon

Randolph Center