Tacloban City just sponsored a mass wedding. Thirteen couples were made to trot through a church’s doors, and a priest administered to them the vows to make them love each other forever and ever. This, after government officials found out that some of these couples had been living in sin for a few years already. A few of them had had children out of wedlock, and in fact, some had produced up to five children. The Governor of Leyte was quoted as saying “we wanted them to have the benefit of marriage for the sake of their children.”
Now what’s wrong with this picture?
Could it be the easy realization that state funds were used for a religious ceremony? Taxpayers had to foot the bill just so some individuals who were too lazy or too cheap or couldn’t afford a church wedding, could actually get to march up the aisle and be blessed by a priest? Where’s the respect for the separation of church and state? Isn’t the mayor authorized to solemnize marriages? Why couldn’t he have performed a marriage ceremony from where he sat at City Hall?
Deeper than this issue though, is the realization that underlying this noble government act is a judgment. Or rather, a couple of judgments. First, is a judgment that living outside wedlock is something bad. Very bad. That society has to step in and do something about it. That these couples who are living in sin must be encouraged and persuaded to end their errant ways. That signing a marriage contract will lead to a better place.
The second judgment, is that illegitimacy is bad. That illegitimate children are somehow worth less than legitimate children. That they are elevated to a higher status if they go through a process of legitimization.
It’s probably time to examine these underlying judgments. Why should the government express a preference for one over the other? Is it their business to get couples off their butts and into wedding gowns and tuxes? Would it make their responsibilities to their citizens and taxpayers less, if they were unmarried? Or if they were bastards? Would it prohibit them from dispensing social services or extending hospitalization benefits? Would it allow them to treat them with less dignity? Would it give them permission to send them to jail?
The answer should be “no” (and boy, if the answer was yes, then that government’s in big trouble.) And since the answer is no, why expend government resources to pander to societal pressures?
I thought we’ve gone way beyond treating people differently on the basis of their legitimacy. That there’s been a concerted effort to amend the laws and improve societal perceptions on people who, without their fault or participation, had the “misfortune” to be born in a world where, apparently, their mother had to make sure she signed a marriage contract before she took off her clothes.
We all know illegitimate children had nothing to do with their status. All of us agree, on some theoretical level, that we should not discriminate against illegitimate children. (I know this is a touchy issue for those legitimate children who are squabbling with their bastard siblings for inheritance rights, but apportioning family wealth shouldn’t factor in on extending dignified treatment to fellow human beings.)
If we agree on these precepts, why then should a city or provincial government emphasize that there’s a line between legitimacy and illegitimacy? Why should they tell people, “cross that line when you can”? Why should they even acknowledge that there’s such a line? Perhaps, the better position to have taken would have been: “Oh, you two unmarried lovebirds have kids. How nice. Have a happy and prosperous life.”
The mayor might argue: “But the father might never be able to get access to the kids if they split up – the mother might deny he’s the father!” My response would be, well, shouldn’t we be changing the laws on custody and access, then? Or he might say, “Catholic schools won’t accept illegitimate children!” My response would be, “Well, what are you waiting for?”
This mass wedding idea was ill-advised. Apologies to the newlyweds.