Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Monday, December 1,2003
EDITORIAL
Study, study
but have no
fear; vacation
time is near
Editor's note: In honor of the stresses of the final two
weeks of the term, we honor Theodor Geisel (aka Dr.
Seuss), and hereby denounce the grotesque cinemato
graphic bastardization of "The Cat in the Hat."
Winter break, two weeks away
But will we make it? We cannot say
We've already done nine weeks of fall
But if we work more, we'll hit the wall
Endless lectures fill our heads
Dreams of tests haunt us in beds,
"Professor!" we cry, "Please desist!
We get your meaning, we've got your gist!"
Studying for hours filled with dread,
All through the week of dead.
Are you sure you've got the nerve?
Are you sure you can meet the curve?
Just one week more of class,
Are you sure you'll even pass?
We'll find a friend, we'll find a buddy,
For hours on end, we'll have to study,
Study Swedish and art and writing
Against the clock, we'll all be fighting,
Study math and psych and Greek,
Faces in books for the entire week.
Hours of work before we're done,
A quiz! A midterm! But there's no fun!
Only 10 more school days till we arrive,
But we just don't know whether we'll survive.
Our brains will soon rot to rust
Prepping for tests that are most unjust
Studying for hours every night,
Slaving away in Library Knight,
Then comes a week with many a test,
We'll do our best, but get no rest
Sometime next week you'll awake,
And thereupon begin a well-deserved break.
Almost a month to sleep andplay,
But not for long you can stay,
At parents' house where food is made,
Hot and steamy from the oven.
Nothing like a modier's lovin'!
For these small pleasures you do trade,
Your education bought and paid.
EDITORIAL POLICY
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald
editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters
@dailyemerald.com. Letters to the editor and guest
commentaries are encouraged. Letters are limited
to 250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Authors are limited to one submission per calendar
month. Submission must include phone number and
address for verification. The Emerald reserves the right
to edit for space, grammar and style.
Steve Baggs Illustrator
U.S. needs to deregulate marriage
The culture wars raged on last week as
the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled
that state marriage laws may not be con
strued to exclude homosexuals. The rul
ing legalized homosexual marriage in
Massachusetts.
GUEST
COMMENTARY
This newfound
civil right vin
dicated liberal
pundits, who
saw current
marriage laws as intolerant. Meanwhile,
conservative commentators complained
that courts should not arbitrarily rede
fine marriage and overturn a law sup
ported by the people. Once again, both
sides just don't get it: What business is it
of the government to regulate marriage
in the first place?
Both liberals and conservatives argue
that since marriage is of such fundamen
tal import, the state has a compelling in
terest in defining and controlling it. They
often allege, correctly, that marriage is
one of humanity's oldest and most im
portant institutions. But they make an in
valid deduction that since marriage is so
vital and deep-rooted, the government
should have power over it. After all, there
are many issues of vital importance to so
ciety that the government has no right to
regulate. The question, then, does not re
volve around whether marriage is impor
tant. Rather, who should define this insti
tution: The government or individuals?
In the end, whatever the merits of
marriage are as a social good, it does not
need the government's interference to
survive. It never did. Whereas the mod
ern state dates back only a few hundred
years, marriage has long existed inde
pendent of government. Marriage was
regulated by custom in the West for
thousands of years until 1754, when
Britain's Marriage Act took effect. Just as
it has in the past, today most marriages
still derive their personal significance
from religious or cultural sanctions, not
from the approval of a low-level govern
ment functionary.
Some observers argue that legal sanc
tion adds much to the relationship. In
deed, a marriage license offers innumer
able public and private benefits. As it
stands, every state government has the
power to define marriage, and by exten
sion, their derived benefits, such as tax
write-offs or home ownership benefits.
Conservatives, who are traditionally skep
tical of programs such as affirmative ac
tion, should take note of marriage laws
that selectively endow entitlements to one
segment of the population over another.
The fundamental problem with mar
riage licenses isn't the benefits, but rather
the nature of the license itself. Marriage
licenses are contracts. The state govern
ment, not the couple involved, defines
the legal terms of the contract. If a couple
wants to be married and receive legal
protection and recognition, they have no
choice but to abide by the terms of the
state. This makes marriage, in essence, a
state-sanctioned monopoly.
Deregulating marriage means ending
government monopoly, state by state. It
signifies that couples have full legal au
thority to draw out their marriage con
tracts. Courts could then enforce those
contracts just like any other legally bind
ing document.
If the government were removed from
marriage, the benefits would be numer
ous. First, since the state no longer holds
the monopoly on marriage, each couple
could tailor important issues in the mar
riage contract to their own needs (e.g.
prenuptial arrangements, no-fault di
vorce). A couple could define their mar
riage contract according to purely reli
gious definitions, or they could use a
standard template to avoid the hassle.
Second, companies that recognize ho
mosexual marriage contracts would gain
a comparative advantage in the market
place. For example, if a health provider or
an insurance company decided to recog
nize only heterosexual marriage contracts
with visiting rights, the gay-friendly busi
ness would gain a competitive foothold
in society. In short, the only thing that
would regulate a particular union would
be social norms, which is exactly the way
it should be.
Third, removing the government from
marriage would make marriage and di
vorce laws much simpler. Finally, privati
zation would solve the future problems of
non-conventional forms of marriage, such
as polygamy. The government would not
endorse a particular form of marriage, but
at the same time not prohibit it, and in
stead allow culture to regulate it.
Liberals are right in their belief that the
government should not create discrimi
natory, preferential policies against ho
mosexuals — conservatives are correct in
that the government should not endorse
a form of activity that the majority does
not approve of. The solution, then, is to
remove government from the equation
altogether. The state needs to stop play
ing priest for every wedding. Individuals
should be free to define the terms of their
own relationship. It's time to privatize
marriage now and end government inter
ference in that which we hold dearest.
Arpan Sura is a writer for the Daily Texan
(U. Texas-Austin). U-WIRE.
ONLINE POLL
Each week, the Emerald publishes the
results of the previous week’s poll and
the coming week’s poll question. Visit
http://www.dailyemerald.com to vote.
Last question: What was on your
Thanksgiving menu?
Results: 46 votes.
• Turkey: 47.8 percent or 22 votes
• Other stuff: 21.8 percent or 10 votes
• Faux turkey or Tofurkey: 10.9 percent
or 5 votes
• I didn’t celebrate Thanksgiving: 8.7
percent or 4 votes
• Restaurant or bar food: 4.3 percent or
2 votes
Turducken: 4.3 percent or 2 votes
• Ham: 2.2 percent or 1 vote
This week: Do you think cheating is a
serious problem?
Choices: Yes, I work hard for my
grades and others should have to do
the same; Yes, cheating shows a lack
of integrity; No, it doesn't matter if
students cheat; No, students should do
whatever it takes to get a good grade. .