Veteran journalist offers surprising critique of Senate’s same-sex marriage bill

The Faytteville Observer published an op-ed over the weekend by reporter Paul Woolverton in which he critiqued the bill state Senators advanced last week to set up, in effect, “separate but equal” marriages for same sex couples. Interestingly though, his focus was not on the language allowing magistrates to opt out of marriage duties due to “sincere religious beliefs.”

Instead, Woolverton flew up to a slightly higher altitude and rightfully asked: Why in the heck are magistrates even involved in officiating marriages?

“Lawmakers who say they want lower taxes and smaller government dropped the ball Wednesday.

Their missed opportunity was glaring when the Senate voted to create a law to let magistrates opt out of conducting any weddings if they have a religious objection. This issue has surfaced since gay marriage became legal in the state.

No one in the debate questioned the underlying premise that a magistrate or clergy member is necessary to seal the marriage contract.”

Of his local lawmakers who supported the bill, Woolverton said this:

“As fiscal conservatives, they could have said to themselves: A man and a woman pay the government $60 to get a government-approved marriage license. Why should they then have to visit another government office and pay the government another $20, or hire a government-designated third party for a fee or ‘donation,’ to finalize their marriage contract?”

He sums up this way:

“If it’s good policy for the government to be involved in marriage, then the government should make its involvement the least intrusive it can be. It should record marriages when couples visit the Register of Deeds to buy their marriage licenses. The staff at that office can handle the ‘I do’s.’

The government database keeping track of who is married to whom could be updated immediately with no chance of a marriage license getting lost or forgotten when it needs to be returned. …

Not only could wedding couples save money if the magistrates were cut out of the marriage loop, but there would be less work for the state’s 675 magistrates to do. Perhaps fewer would be needed, and taxpayer money could be saved by eliminating some of these positions.

Somehow, in the debate over the religious rights of magistrates, the Senate forgot to address the more fundamental question of whether they are needed in the marriage process at all. That’s the kind of question small-government advocates are supposed to be asking.”

Of course, the only thing Woolverton’s creative idea fails to account for is the near certainty that religious conservatives would, if such a change ever became law, immediately introduce legislation to allow Registers of Deeds to opt out of doing their jobs.