Social Deconstruction
George II has been going on quite a bit lately on the topic of gay marriage, without of course addressing marriage itself except to say that it must be preserved. There have been a couple of ‘blogs I track to one degree or another where the subject has come up from a self-interested point of view. Since the topic came up in public debate, I’ve always taken the liberal line: everybody should have the right to get married if that’s what they want, regardless of sexuality. Follow Me Here posts a report on the decline of marriage in Scandinavia, tying the situation to the rise in the acceptance of gay marriage in Sweden and across Europe. I wonder how much of a relationship there really is, but even before I get to that question, I wonder if I shouldn’t have reservations about expanding the institution of marriage to same-sex couples? In the end, there isn’t much of a debate for me. The distinction between marriage and “civil union” seems like splitting hairs: except in a religious context, it’s all “civil union.” Government is involved in registering marriages to ensure that some level of social equity is maintained regarding responsibility towards one’s partner and towards any children resulting from the partnership, as well as to take advantage of the taxation situation. To be fair, “take advantage” is a relatively modern development, I expect. The “marriage penalty” many couples encounter paying taxes is a development of the increased number of dual-income households. It was much more the case that getting married improved one’s tax situation, albeit at the same time as imposing an increased financial responsibility at home to offset it. So why should government perceive a need to “defend” marriage? The institutionalization of relationships has been in decline for a very long time now, particularly as the benefits of stamping your commitment “official” have declined. There are only two reasons I see for government to insert itself into the debate: tax revenue implications and political expediency. If allowing gays and lesbians to marry causes heterosexuals to stop marrying, this could have a negative impact on taxes. Couples would be able to file singly, at least one of them claiming any children as deductions, and millions upon millions of dollars would stop flowing into the coffers of the IRS. Society would crumble. Democracy would fail. O.k., the rationale isn’t reasonable, and no sane politician would argue this way, because it would just admit to the greedy nature of governments. Political expediency, however, is meat and potatoes to those in or seeking public office. What is the perception, the opinion (regardless of whether it’s informed or not) of the public, and what stance will ensure I get (or don’t lose) votes? Does allowing gays to participate cheapen the social imprimatur of marriage? Is the average married man or woman (non-gay, obviously) offended by those dirty gays signing up at the courthouse? The only thing I find offensive is that straight and gay don’t sign up under the same laws. I’d rather see laws regarding marriage amended to include gays and lesbians than distinct (not to say “special,” which implies unique entitlements that aren’t really being enacted) legislation. On the other hand, a special law had to be passed to give women the vote, and nobody much minds that anymore. Some step has to be taken to provide equitable treatment under law, and enacting gay marriage rights may be a clumsy move, but inevitable as our perceptions and understanding of the human condition expand. Watching the first instalment of Michael Apted’s Marriage in America last night, we heard a lesbian couple explain their decision to go to Vermont as a way of demonstrating to their families and friends the seriousness of their commitment. The civil union was merely a step towards encouraging participation in a subsequent ceremony enacted with the more traditional appurtenances. If the churches don’t want to permit homosexuals to marry, that’s up to them. Such bodies have long operated separately from civil institutions, one of the benefits we got from the schism caused by Henry VIII wanting a new wife. George II and others who would seek to prevent everyone from marrying really ought to look to their roots: unless you’re a Roman Catholic, your principles are the result of the Protestant Reformation, the Medieval course of events that led to the separation of church and state, in which case you should probably mind your own business and let others mind theirs. As for the Catholics, well, I think the Paulian doctrine would say that living in a society where the state constitutionally operates without regard to the tenets of any church doctrine obliges you to honor the separation regardless of your religious principles.