Saturday, June 25, 2011

Wait...there are gay people in New York?

So New York becomes the latest state to pass a law allowing for same sex marriages. <Insert non-homophobic and hopefully endearing gay joke here. Maybe something about not wanting to be the clerk who registers all those china patterns.>

Let's state the obvious: gays have been the subject of discrimination for a very long time. Marriage is what we're focusing on lately, but they've traveled a long road that started with the right to simply be gay. That would be very tough. My ancestry is Irish (Bear with me a moment. Full disclosure: I've never felt disenfranchised a day in my life.), but whatever discrimination the Irish suffered when they immigrated to the U.S., they generally were not told to stop being Irish. Gays on the other hand, have been told to "cut it out" for quite a lot of time and there are programs to convince them they can and should. So this is a real victory and certainly moves them closer to equal treatment. 

That said, I would like to have seen this whole debate go in a different direction. I think this decision solidifies and legitimizes a system that no longer makes sense.

The government puts a lot of stock in marriage. Married couples have special legal rights. They can't be made to testify against one another. They get breaks on their taxes. That sort of thing. Government generally recognizes the age old tradition of marriage as "sacred" and deserving of some sort of acknowledgement. There's a whole lot of Christians who would like that to continue. They think it is important that government sanction and affirm their view of romantic cohabitation and its presumptive responsibilities.

Why? Well, lets not be disingenuous. I believe the reason is that they would like the government simply to enforce their view of morality. The most extreme probably support laws against being gay generally, which are still on the books in many places. They are happy then, to grant the government authority to regulate the most undeniably personal sorts of behaviors. 

Wow is that dangerous. It's also a recurring theme, right or left. Watch the talk shows and you'll hear the debate, whether the issue is gay marriage, hate speech, taxation, regulation, etc. They go back and forth over which evil to discourage and which behavior to encourage. Just once I'd like to see a host step in and say
     
"Well, at least we all agree that we're better off with the government officially sanctioning who we sleep with, what we think, and what we do with our money. Next, an hour on the latest search for a missing blond girl. Good night everybody."

I am not suggesting that marriage cannot be sacred, and that people are not free to solemnize their unions in any way they choose--exactly the opposite in fact. Its existence as a religious or societal institution makes perfect sense to me. And there are reasons a growing country might have found benefit in encouraging marriage, offspring etc. But we're not there now, and I see no reason why we should want our government to care whether we are married, single, or living in a commune. 

Aside: who will be the first gangster to get married to another gangster so they don't have to testify against each other in court? Too bad Law & Order is gone. 


I believe most of the matters that are legitimized by government sanctioned marriage could be just as easily settled by a contract. Things like property, shared guardianship of children, next of kinship--these could all be spelled out in simple, often boilerplate legal documents. It might encourage people to give them more thought, for that matter, and come up with unique arrangements all their own. 


Of course, the government is big business, and they make a lot of money off things like inheritance taxes that are built on established structures. That's the easiest candidate for elimination and simple contractual settlement. Why on earth should the government care, except that they want a piece of the action? But it's obvious what their interests are. 


Why should WE care? My marriage (to a woman, incidentally) is all about me and her, and the vows we've made to each other and our children. I don't need Uncle Sam to tell me what it means and what its worth. 


<sigh> See, I'm the guy whose home team won the series on a bad call. Sure I'm happy, but I'd prefer that last runner had really been safe, not benefited from the ump's bad eyesight. 


No one's interested in hearing that at the victory party though. Oh well. Pass me the hoers d'oeuvres, what are these, like little cream puffs?

No comments:

Post a Comment