I’m heading back to D.C. after a quick trip to Minneapolis for the wedding of two good friends, whom I introduced through the romantic medium of email. Guy and Bretigne (a mixed couple — one male and one female) were married for the purposes of the state last year but exchanged vows in front of the people who count on Saturday, at a lovely Bed-and-Breakfast owned by Bretigne’s libertarian sister Gretchen and her libertarian husband Dave (who it seems, oddly enough, met at a Cato Institute event I organized). The ceremony was beautifully conceived and executed and quite moving, as Bretigne’s mother explained that Bretigne was wearing the pearls that have been worn by four generations of women in their family on their wedding days. The vows were taken before friends and family, with no role for the officious politicians who insist on telling us what marriage is or who may or may not marry. (I brought a copy of Minnesota’s statute defining marriage, just to be sure; it requires that whoever might first “solemnize” a marriage in Minnesota must first present his or her credentials to the county clerk to verify that he or she is properly authorized to solemnize a marriage. How could important events be solemn without a government stamp on a form?)
The real romance behind the story, however, is surely the decision to marry “legally” in 2004, rather than in 2005. Guy called me last November to tell me that, with Bretigne’s parents in town, they’d gone to city hall and gotten married. I got a real tear in my eye when he told me that he had worked out the tax implications of marriage in 2004 vs. marriage in 2005, on the basis of which they decided to make it official with the tax authorities in 2004. And who says that romance is dead?
Mixed Marriages Never Work?
Tom G. Palmer:
Mi Dios! What has this country come to? Well, at least your friend’s example has given me a heads-up on what to expect when I will marry my sweetheart. John Coleman is right. We’ve got to seperate marriage and the state. This example shows how state-sanctioned marriage is just ridiculous.
Well of course. Unless the oh so thrifty and responsible state “solemnizes” the marriage, it’s nothing but chock full of irresponsibility and frivolity.
Very thoughtful couple, Tom. Did you point out to them as well the importance, should they decide to have children, of conceiving the child toward late March…? The tax advantages are enormous!
We’re on it Ross — little “Exemption” should be arriving in late October. (My parents still haven’t forgiven me for being born in January instead of December and I don’t want my child going through life with that kind of burden.)
I should also mention that one of the celebrants (one of my best friends — no state or church reps present) married her partner of many years last year — only to have the marriage “invalidated” by the state (CA) several months later. Hmmm… maybe *that’s* why they’re both so frivolous…
Tom, thank you so much for coming, and for your words at the ceremony. We really appreciate your coming all the way out there to participate in our celebration. …and of course for being the catalyst behind it all!
Dear Bretigne,
Heartfelt congratulations to you both on the anticipated arrival of your exemption. I’m sure all of us on this list wish you twins or triplets in your efforts to minimize your tax-burdens to the State.
🙂
Congrats again,
Ross