A recent poll shows strong that 55 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Whatever one thinks of gay marriage itself, a Constitutional amendment banning it is ludicrous. A constitution is a framework for a nation�s government, not a means by which trendy political disputes are resolved. There is no constitutionally justified reason why gay marriage should even be a federal issue, and hence no justification for the federal government to have any say on what marriage is or is not. Having said that, the policy that states should enact is such: gay marriage should be recognized, but it should be recognized as just that: gay marriage. Allow me to explain:
In a free society, adult individuals are free to engage in any consensual activity they desire. In a rational government, they are also able to form any contract between them and have it be legally recognizable and binding � assuming that the contract does not impose obligations on anyone else and is enforceable. Ignoring its social and moral ramifications, marriage is just such a contract. Certainly there is more to marriage than a legal contract, but from the government�s perspective, that�s all it should be seen as � a contract to share finances, certain legal obligations, and custodial rights. Legally, marriage is a special kind of contract �a standardized way of creating a complex legal entity. It certainly would not be feasible for the courts or for couples to have to draw up their own unique marriage contract, with all the details covering all potential eventualities. It would take dozens of lawyers, and it still wouldn�t have hundreds of years of precedent to cover all the possibilities. To simplify all that, we have a standard marriage contract that can be handled by a single public notary. Are there any valid reasons not to extend this contract to couples of the same sex?
On the face of it, the answer is no -- there is nothing particularly special about the sex of the people entering into a marriage. Now some might cite a harm to children of such relationships, social harms, etc � but that is nonsense I will not go into here. There is clearly a demand for such a contract, and it is the function of government to provide it. Given the above arguments, there is clearly a valid reason to legalize gay marriage.
There is a problem however. The fact of marriage is used by many private entities to provide various privileges when entering into various legal contracts. Examples are spousal benefits provided by employers, insurance firms, and other private business that take marriage into consideration. If no distinction is made between traditional and same-sex marriages, then the firms would not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, this is precisely what the gay lobby wants. If traditional and same-sex marriages are not delineated, then all private (and public) entities that consider marital status would be forced to use the government�s definition of marriage. Now some companies (like Disney) might be fine with that � but many others clearly will not be � and for good reasons, since homosexuality, for example, (is statistically at least) very bad for your health. There are many other valid and invalid reasons to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but whatever they are, it�s not the job of government to judge them. Individuals own their lives and may choose to engage or not to engage in trade with whomsoever they please for whatsoever reason. The �homosexual agenda� � if there is such a thing � does not recognize this. Their goal is to use government coercion to impose a certain non-discriminatory social view on the public. Whether you believe that homosexuality is moral or immoral, using government to force that view on everyone else is clearly wrong.
What�s the solution? The solution is to create a new marriage contract for homosexual couples and treat as such � a separate legal contract. Private individuals will then be free to recognize it -- and provide the same benefits to gay couples or not to. Government should not provide special benefits to anyone � whether they are single, or in a traditional or non-traditional marriage. Since it respects contracts however, partners of gay marriages would still retain the same custodial and inheritance rights as those of straight ones.
I don't completely agree-->www.absolutereason.com
Posted by: Keenan I. Nichols at December 21, 2003 03:47 PMDitto.
I was with you up to paragraph 4.
The marriage contract is just a contract, as you said, with complex legal ramifications.
But it hardly stands to reason that a marriage contract for all couples would inhibit discrimination. If that's your cause, it would be more reasonable to simply allow employers to ask the gender of one's spouse. This quote of yours is at least partially true:
Their goal is to use government coercion to impose a certain non-discriminatory social view on the public.
The goal is the uniform application of the law to the citizenry. Allowing citizens of the same sex to enter into marriage contracts is hardly are moral sanction especially in light of proper government which does not concern itself with morality but simply with the protection of individual rights, which requires the uniform application of the law in order to be accomplished.
Further, statistical correlation between disease and homosexuality is not causation. Pointing out the correlation is unworthy of this post.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 22, 2003 09:52 PMThose who push for gay marriage are explicit about not wanting people to discriminate based on sexual orientation. I (am biased, of course) see their point. Many Civil rights activists don't want people discriminating against people on the basis of race.
I agree that it isn't the job of the government to tell people what they can and cannot discriminate against, but I don't understand why you do want people discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation?
hmm... Did I misunderstand?
Also, I would be interested to know what any one of the valid reasons is to disciminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.
And finally, I don't know if you've seen, but I've been debating with your friend Keenan about homosexuality recently. It hasn't gone over very well, but I am earnestly interested in trying this subject and finding the proper answers.
I've written two posts recently on the topic on my own site. Your feedback is also very welcome.
"Further, statistical correlation between disease and homosexuality is not causation."
It may not be, but to a life insurance company, that distinction is irrelevant. It's well known that married men live several years longer than bachelors, and that gay men (married or not) have much shorter life expectancies. Whatever the reasons, insurance companies would be wise to jack up interest rates for them -- and the government has no business intefering.
"If that's your cause, it would be more reasonable to simply allow employers to ask the gender of one's spouse"
They certainly could, but what about existing contracts and policies -- where "marriage" is mentioned, it should be assume that it refers strictly to traditional marriages. Hence the need for a distinction.
Posted by: David at December 25, 2003 03:48 AMSince gay men can't be married until very recently and only in some states, you can't claim that they don't live as long as straight, married men. Do insurance companies charge single men more than married men in general?
That's their right to do so. And I'll also conceed that gay men are rightfully considered a high-risk group. You were very good to point out that being gay isn't necessarily bad for your health. But it's appears as a nonsequitur in your post. That's why I asked.
And if someone assumed that when another claims to be married that the mystery spouse is of the opposite sex in light of the fact that it very well may not be, that would be terribly foolish of them wouldn't it?
I personally don't mind a distinct term in legal contexts, but the distinction isn't really necessary.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 25, 2003 07:15 AMHey, I just found an interesting statement by Walter Williams that supports your insurance company sample:
"Here's my question: How come life insurance companies don't advertise lower life insurance premiums for heterosexuals? After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be charged with lifestyle discrimination. But isn't it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren't."
Found here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3438
Posted by: Trey Givens at January 2, 2004 11:58 PM"But isn't it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren't."
no.... Smoking, Alcohol abuse and drunk driving all have direct impacts on health.(Liver damage, lung damage) Homosexuality in and of itself does not. The possible exception to this would be the increased liability of a receiver of anal or oral sex because of the thinness of anal membranes, and the reception of sperm into the body carries higher risk.