TO THE EDITOR:
The article from Feb. 11, “Students marrying for in-state tuition,” reminded me again of my confusion about some people’s belief in the sanctity of marriage.
Clearly, marriage is no longer the religious institution or even the commitment that it once was. I wonder, then, not only why some individuals insist on excluding certain people from the act of marriage, but also why others insist on maintaining it as the only form of government-recognized commitment. Why is it, for example, that only marriage ensures that a loved one can visit you in the hospital or allows loved ones to use another’s health insurance? For those barred from marriage as well as those in non-traditional relationships, this exclusion can be extremely harmful. Why do we not allow for more open commitments where, for example, a couple could somehow prove to the government their commitment to one another and not have to work through a traditionally religious institution?
In a slightly more radical sense, why do we not completely rid marriage of all of its benefits and instead force everyone to file taxes as individuals, allow anyone with permission to visit loved ones in the hospital, and even make everyone use their own health insurance. To me, the insistence on government recognition of one’s romantic relationships seems unnecessary and outdated.
Alison Grady
Junior
Peace, War and Defense
