Steven Den Beste has an article on gay marriage that I found interesting. One of the most interesting things about it is that I disagree with him that banning gays from marriage is subjective discrimination, as opposed to objective discrimination. Perhaps it is, in one sense. But it is very much objective discrimination in another sense. I suggest you read the article (start about halfway down for the objective/subjective part if you aren’t a fast reader, read it all if you can) and come back here
Back already? Ok.
Now, I am going to take sex out of the argument for the moment. Both senses of the word ’sex’, the one of male/female and the one of physical activity — especially the latter. I am going to talk about marriage only. Furthermore, since the subject is the state, I am not going to talk about religious marriage. We are going to talk about state-licensed marriage. To keep from the usual flame wars about semantics, I am going to call this form of marriage a ‘State-Licensed-Union’. SLU for short. I’m trying to take a logical look at this, without bringing emotional or religious reactions up. The word ‘marriage’ carries a lot of baggage.
So, an SLU is permitted, even encouraged, by the state. It allows for a lot of legal ‘perks’ that would otherwise be expensive to obtain. Many of these are ‘death benefits’ — rights of the surviving member in case of death. Tax breaks, social security benefits, presumption of guardianship of shared children, things of that nature. Some of these benefits can be had via contracts without state presumptions but they are often overturnable by family members who disapproved of an unlicensed relationship.
So let’s say two people have a long-lasting union. They’ve been together 12 years and have two children, both under 15. Lets assume it’s a second union for the legal parent, the other biological parent of the children having died. Assume the biological grandparents disapprove of this union. Assume that for some reason, these two can not get a SLU. What happens if one of them dies suddenly? Worse yet, what happens if it’s the one who is the legal parent who dies? Make it even worse, what if the one who died was the breadwinner as well as the legal parent? The grandparents on the dead one’s side will probably end up with the children (no matter what they think) on the grounds that the survivor couldn’t support them, and they weren’t the survivor’s children anyway.
Marriage has traditionally been supported by the state because it encourages stability for the upbringing of children, which is of advantage to society. Strictly speaking, it is objective discrimination against the children to deny certain couples an SLU and allow it to others. It is objective discrimination against the children, even if it is only subjective discrimination against the parents.
By the way, the above scenario was based on a story I read some time ago (in a magazine somewhere, no I can’t find it), about a white man and a black woman. So maybe the comparisons to race aren’t so off-the-wall after all.
5 Comments
I haven”t read Stephen’s article yet, but here is the sticking point for me. I don’t accept the premise that banning same sex marriage is discriminatory towards homosexuals. Why?
Because it isn’t discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. Same sex prohibition applies equally to heterosexual same-sex unions. There are many, many stable family constructions that involve long term relationships, that do not involve sexual activity - sisters or brothers raising the offspring of one or both together, mother and daughter, etc. In my childhood in rural Canada, it was not uncommon for two siblings to live their entire lives together - but any sharing of property, etc. was still contractual, not matrimonial.
Every argument that can be applied in favour of same sex homosexual unions can be applied to grant marriage licences to same-sex heterosexual unions - why should two sisters or lifelong friends, who wish to gain the advantages of marriage - extension of death benefits, pension benefits, etc. be denied a license to “marry”? Because they are celibate, or have sexual relationships with other partners outside the family unit?
If marriage ceases being a union fundamentally designed to legitimize procreation, then what does it mean at all?
In other words, the question is not about homosexual “rights”, (I put rights in quotes because there has never been any prohibition against gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex) but about the very definition of marriage itself.
People who raise children (whether opposite-sex or same-sex couples or singles) presumably make some sacrifices in their earning and tax-paying potential while benefiting society by raising children, therefore, I think it is fair that they get special government benefits–in particular, social security survivor benefits. I see no reason why childless people should get any special government benefits simply because they are in a couple.
Kate, I’m not talking about marriage. I’m talking about state-licensed-unions. And marriage has never been a union fundamentally designed to legitimize procreation. It has, in fact,traditionally been used as a method of cementing alliances and increasing family wealth. The idea of marriage ‘for love’ or getting married to have kids is recent.
In the past, if you had a hetero pair having sex, and one wasn’t infertile, kids would be coming along one way or another. The state did not encourage marriage in order to encourage procreation (until reliable birth control procreation was pretty much a given). It encouraged marriage in order to give children a stable upbringing.
Since gays are quite able to have children, I think the state should encourage them to give their children a stable upbringing as well.
And a “stable upbringing” cannot be had in a gay relationship. The use of the word “stable” implies (requires) the use of the word “normal”. While a gay relationship may not be rare, it is certainly in no way “normal”.
Using your definition of normal, neither is a black/white or Jewish/Catholic relationship. Or, for that matter, a parent who is deaf or blind.
One Trackback
[...] d. Thus, it is not as Kathy Kinsley says, that we need gay marriage to protect children. (†&8224;) To most help children, to give them the most advantages, children woul [...]