Once More Into the Fray

I confess that I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with both Jim and Pete (see Treebeard’s comment: “I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side”), and I thought I might clarify a few things.

1. Believe it or not, I think that Pete’s argument that refusing the right to marry to same sex couples is a civil rights issue – a denial of equal protection of the laws -- is a perfectly principled position and, indeed, some courts have adopted it. But, I think it has problems.

First up, marriage, like social security, is targeted for a particular segment of the population. Social security, for policy reasons, is restricted to the elderly. Nobody else gets it. Marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples. The elderly get social security because it’s been judged that they have a greater difficulty earning a living than younger folks. Heterosexual couples get to have marriage for the sake of the kids they are raising.

Now, you can argue that that’s not a perfect fit: lots of married couples don’t have kids and lots of same sex couples do. (But, I suspect that more heterosexual couples have kids than same sex couples.) The thing is, you can make the same argument about social security: some elderly people are doing very well earning an income, and some younger people are not. For what it’s worth, courts have long held that perfect fits in legislation are not required and probably not possible. The point is that there is some justification for distinguishing between straights and gays when it comes to marriage other than we hate you.

The other and more important thing is that, for a court to tell a state that, if it’s going to sanction marriages, it must include same-sex couples, is to seriously step out over the abyss. Not there this means anything in the absolute sense, but there is zero precedent as far as I know in the annals of Western Civilization for this, and courts like precedent. All I’m saying is that this is a lot to ask of a judge.

2. And so, while I see the civil rights point of view, I think that there’s a better argument for same sex marriage: it’s a good idea, not just for gay people but for straight people as well. It’s a good idea because the children of gay parents – either by adoption or conception – deserve to have two married parents just like the kids of heterosexual couples. As Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, “I support it [gay marriage] because I think family is a societal good--which benefits me individually. Raise your kid right, and I don't have to worry about him sticking up my kid.” I’d call it the “No Child Left Behind Act” except somebody already took that name.

Second, there is the whole public health issue. For some time now, we’ve faced an epidemic of STD’s, and the epidemic is more widespread among gays. I can’t think of anything stupider than to say, oh, I don’t care what gays do privately but I just don’t want them getting married. I say, not that gay couples may marry, but they must marry. If everyone would limit themselves to one sexual partner in a lifetime, STD’s could be eliminated. The sacrifice would be totally worth it, because it would permit future generations to have as many sex partners as they wanted with minimal health risk.

Beyond that, we know that marriage is good for your health, particularly for men. Married people live longer than single or divorced individuals. (This is true for women, but it’s truer for men.) Men and women who are married have lower rates of substance abuse and alcohol consumption than unmarried individuals; they have a much lower suicide rates; they live more healthy life styles, and engage in less risky behavior. (Apparently, married couples take to heart the song-line, “Take good care of yourself; you belong to me.”) Oh, and by the way, cohabitating couples do not see any of these health benefits. See mystical aspects of marriage discussed below.

Jim points out in his blog entry that heterosexuals live longer than gays. No wonder – gays can’t get the health benefits of marriage. In any event, I have no doubt that one way of reducing our health costs is to let gays marry. If you want your insurance premiums lowered, vote for same-sex marriage.

Finally, we know from the history of race relations in this country that marginalizing people is always a bad idea. Check out how well things are going in Europe with their Muslim immigrants. By marginalizing gays, we straight people shoot ourselves in the foot. If people have a stake in society, they work to make that society better. By allowing gays to marry, you give them that stake; they become full-fledged citizens just like everyone else. And there’s the related satisfaction of having an all-inclusive society. Again, turning to Coates: “I simply don't enjoy living in a country that discriminates. That's my feeling. That's about what I want, how I want to live.”

I agree with Jim that same sex marriage is a happiness issue. The fact is, despite all the jokes, marriage makes people happy. It also makes the people around them happy.

3. As to Jim’s other points, sure, we’re doing something new and basically untried with gay marriage. But, no doubt there were plenty of naysayers when the American colonists decided to create a democracy or when we were debating whether to give women the vote – arguing that this would upset the cosmic applecart. In fact, how many practices were followed for thousands of years that we now find appalling? Again, I fail to see anything compelling about the argument that, because we’ve always done it this way, it must be right. “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true. . . .” Noam Chomsky.

I also agree with Jim that there is something mystical about marriage. What’s more mystical than “the two shall become one?” But, in my experience, the mystical is often at odds with the religious. The fact is: historical religions are run by flawed human beings who often get things wrong. The religious defense of slavery alone shows how wrong they can be. I think that it’s better to listen to Jesus on this one: "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?” Luke 12:57.

Finally, yes, I said that there are bigger fish to fry. And if my fairy Godmother suddenly showed up and said she'd grant me just one wish, universal health care or gay marriage, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd go with the universal health care. But that doesn't mean you can't be passionate about more than one thing at a time.