By John Mattingly
With all the tough issues facing the U.S., such as a lingering war on terrorism, poverty, unemployment, a monstrous national debt weighing in on weak real estate values, not to mention the pointless bickering at most levels of government, it’s easy to understand why a politician would want to make a big deal out of same-sex marriage.
What could be more vital to our national interests than whether or not humans of the same sex can get married? As a farmer, it’s hard for me to imagine an issue that bears more directly on the price of fertilizer.
What puzzles me is why the Religious Right and the Born-Agains so adamantly proclaim that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The Bible – in the New Testament at Luke 20 no less, which is really the latest and most definitive Word we have on the matter – clearly states that marriage is only for children who have a slim chance at the kingdom of heaven.
And Jesus answering them said, The children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any more for they are equal unto the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Luke 20:34-36
The sex of “The children” given in marriage is irrelevant. What the Religious Right should be lobbying for is a Constitutional Amendment banning all marriage, which, according to the Bible provides a nifty shortcut to eternal life. This, perhaps, is the source of the old saying that people of all sexual persuasions should be allowed to get married and suffer the hell and damnation that comes with it.
Even more puzzling than the curious, if uninformed, position of the Religious Right on the issue of same-sex marriage, is the blindness of the Republican Establishment to the economic opportunities presented by same-sex marriage. I’ve written about this before, but not in great detail. The fact is, legalizing same-sex marriage could give a tremendous boost to our anemic U.S. economy. To understand how, it’s necessary to look at the legal structures available to all of us for bringing together labor, capital, and hence, bodies of property.
First, we have the sole proprietorship, or the DBA (Doing Business As) in which people of all and any sexual orientation simply get together with no particular organizational principal and conduct their business. It’s an odd concept, people coming together to work, trusting each other, but it does happen. The problem is that when there is a disagreement, settlement can be arbitrary, regardless of your sexual preference. Over long periods of time, the DBA format has problems with fairness and competence where groups are involved, and thus lacks economic persistence.
Second, there is the partnership, where a simple business entity can be formed between two people doing business with an operating agreement. More complex partnerships exist in which there are multiple partners, and this can take the form of either a limited partnership, or a general partnership. In a partnership, documents are drawn allocating responsibilities and authorities, together with rewards and remedies.
A partnership agreement that is fair and thorough can be an excellent form of uniting labor and capital. Same-sex couples could form a partnership to achieve the same structural consequence as a marriage contract, but with a lot more paperwork and reporting requirements. The main problem with a partnership is that if changes come along that are not anticipated in the partnership document, a partner, or partners, can be constrained or disadvantaged. Also, in a simple or general partnership, any given partner can discover that they are liable for the actions of other partners. And, finally, partnerships must adhere to special IRS record-keeping and filing requirements that demand special attention.
Third, the corporation, the business structure that creates an artificial person who lives beyond the mere mortals who formed it (Jesus, in fact, may have been the first corporate CEO). By issuing shares of stock the corporation fractionalizes ownership of its assets, and thus the means of production, such that a relatively small ownership interest can control the entire business. Same-sex couples could form a corporation and achieve many of the goals of a marriage contract, though it is generally thought to be a clumsy and cold way to do it, and would have a hard time addressing adultery.
The corporation has the advantage of creating positions with job descriptions that can be filled by any person over time, even persons of radically different sexual orientations, and thus the corporation becomes a very big person with exchangeable organs that offer a decent chance at perpetuity of operations. A corporation turns the decision-making process over to a Board of Directors so that when a decision is made, no one individual can be held directly responsible for it if it breaks badly, nor can anyone take grand credit for success. Corporations have the potential to become huge, faceless, eternal vampires operating within the economy.
Fourth, the Limited Liability Company (LLC), a business structure that has become popular in recent decades as a kind of slimmed-down corporation for small operations, family farms and mom-and-pop operations who want to insulate certain assets from judgments, lawsuits, and other uncomfortable processes.
Though there are some advantages to an LLC, it can be cumbersome to the people who formed it, as there are numerous reporting requirements, and it can be just as constraining as a partnership if disagreements arise. The liability shield is susceptible to being “pierced” if it can be shown that the only reason the LLC was formed was to dodge a blatant liability or engage in reckless negligence. An LLC is not a license to behave badly and get away with it.
Finally, we have marriage. People in love think marriage is a union of two soul mates, a spiritual affair involving vows, gowns, flowers, and receptions. What people sometimes learn later (absent a prenuptial agreement) is that a marriage contract not only unites two bodies, it also unites two bodies of property, and does so much quicker, easier, and more efficiently than a partnership, a corporation, or an LLC. In fact, marriage is so efficient at uniting bodies of property that it should be the envy of all other business forms.
Adding same-sex capability to the marriage contract would allow individuals of the same sex to unite their property with the mere saying of a vow. It would seem like magic, as if a wand was wagged and the impossible appeared. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck could get married and unite a pair of talk-show businesses without a lot of time-consuming legal work. But spare us the pillow talk. Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow could marry just to balance the exhaustion.
The founder of Facebook could marry the major stockholder in Google and unite the two social networks without going through the Securities and Exchange Commission. Think about Boehner and Reid tying the knot next to Pelosi and Boxer. Talk about a way to minimize regulations and speed up the political process! Even a corporation, which is most likely a transgender person, could marry and merge their assets with other corporations after a mere ring and a kiss.
Bottom line: Same-sex marriage could cut through so much red tape in business unions that Republicans should start talking about legalizing bigamy.
