The debate on gay marriage is oftentimes truly incoherent. One side says shrilly, “Destruction of the family!” To those of us who support gay rights, this makes no sense; same-sex marriage would lead to the construction of families.
But to someone who opposes gay marriage, the other side must seem just as nonsensical. “Equality!” we shout, to which our opponents blink dumbly and think, Well, gay people aren’t equal.
And how can we argue against that, really? If someone says being gay is wrong because the Bible says so, there’s no way to respond. The rote reply might go something like this: Fine, you can have your religious beliefs, but don’t try to impose them on the rest of us.
This is where things get sticky. Same-sex marriage supporters like to think that their cause is one that simply asks government to get out of people’s personal lives. Take David Hoffman, an Illinois senatorial candidate (he lost in the primary this Tuesday), who writes on his web site, “The government should not intrude on our personal decisions of who to love. That is why I support gay marriage.”
If only it were that simple.
When the government awards a marriage license to a straight couple, it necessarily denies marriage to others. In this case, two guys who want to marry are denied such a license. But even if we were to include gay marriage in the approved marriage category, government would continue to deny licenses to polygamous people or to underage couples, among others. There is a great social intrusion: Government is defining the institution of marriage. Most same-sex marriage advocates would say that we should draw the line at “two consenting adults.” Yet, like it or not, even this demarcation is inherently a moral judgment.
As long as the state is handing out the licenses, it cannot stay neutral. Allowing same-sex marriage won’t solve this problem. Government would then be telling certain religious groups that their conception of marriage is wrong. (Just as now government, in most states, tells everyone that gay marriage is wrong.) The question then is whether or not this is the role of the state. To a gay-rights supporter, I would ask whether or not it is government’s role to enforce the value of tolerance for gay people.
One can certainly answer “yes” to that question. Government should take the lead, one might argue, in supporting tolerance of our fellow citizens. Fair enough. But if you’re making that argument, then you’re supporting more governmental intrusion into our private lives—more specifically, our private beliefs—not less.
Imagine, instead, a government that does not take sides, that it does not even issue marriage licenses. The sky would not fall. If gay-rights supporters really believe that government should not impose morality, it’s this path that they should support. How can we say no, government shouldn’t implement morality—except if it’s our morality.
Unfortunately, this view—that the implementation of the “right” morality by government is fine—is what the gay-marriage movement is all about. Supporters subscribe to the conservative belief that government is the arbiter of what a real marriage is. Thus, they’re trying to change the governmental definition of marriage. And they will win: There’s almost no doubt in my mind that, say, 20 years from now same-sex marriage will be recognized in most states, if not the whole country. The truth is that, to a large extent, I will be happy about this.
But achieving this goal will mean having to cede a moral battle that is perhaps even larger than the tremendously important fight for gay equality. It is the fight against the government as the arbiter of morality. And, unfortunately, it is a fight that, at least on many issues, seems lost.
— Matt Barnum is a fourth-year in the College majoring in psychology.
Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.
Discussion
NE
February 5th 2010 at 04:46 AM
"Fair enough. But if you’re making that argument, then you’re supporting more governmental intrusion into our private lives—more specifically, our private beliefs—not less."
what is the intrusion? government marriage licenses grant certain legal benefits to married couples concerning shared property, child custody, hospital visitation rights, etc. Currently not everyone can get these benefits, only heterosexual couples. the gay rights movement proposes extending these benefits to homosexual couples. you propose... banning these rights for everyone? some mention of civil unions or other alternatives would have been helpful here.
since things like custody are both legal issues, and sort of important to marriage, I don't know how you're going to avoid government "involvement" in marriage. or why, specifically, you'd want to.
CHARLES STEPHEN THOMPSON
February 5th 2010 at 04:45 PM
Oddly, I find myself agreeing almost completely with your argument, which is saying something as . However, it overlooks a fairly significant point: government sanctioned marriage bestows on those entering it a degree of legal recognition that is more than just "I love this man" or "I love this woman." It allows for inheritance, spousal benefits, power of attorney, etc in both implied and specific ways that other forms of contracting do not or are not recognized by all entities. That is really what gays (myself include) want. We want our relationship—our marriage—to be recognized in the same way that everyone else's is and, should it ever come to this, we want our rights acknowledged and our decisions respected when our partners are dying or dead. While I would love for the institution of marriage to go the way of the dodo, until it does, I want the same legal protections for my relationship that heterosexual couples enjoy in theirs.
ANONYMOUS
February 7th 2010 at 11:22 PM
Government will always have to issue marriage licenses if a married couple are ever to receive marital benefits. It seems nonsensical to say that government should cede this responsibility.
As long as government does this, it will act as a moral arbiter. How would you suggest separating the moral and legal side of things? As you never remarked on this crucial topic, it doesn't really seem like your article has much of a point.
JOLENE
February 10th 2010 at 08:15 PM
It is not right, it will never be right. How often do we go to third world countries and see random groups of gay couples. Never! Because they act on instinct rather than popularity. Which really is the bottom line in decision making in this country. Whether something is right or wrong is no longer the question, it is what is the most popular to the majority, losely meaning the people who have a large pocketbook. Frankly, I am highly aware of the fact that it is only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal, and it will never cease to turn my stomach. I have been friends with many gay people, and have myself been involved in a gay relationship, but it never felt right, or natural. It felt like giving up. And when I made my friends and former partner aware of my feelings, they became violent towards me. Threatening to prove I was wrong, threatening to "convince" me I really was gay. I truly cared for many of these people, but for my own safety and sense of self, I had to cut ties with them. And now I live in fear of what the future holds for my son.
ANONYMOUS
April 5th 2010 at 01:54 PM
"But to someone who opposes gay marriage, the other side must seem just as nonsensical. “Equality!” we shout, to which our opponents blink dumbly and think, Well, gay people aren’t equal."
While I realize you are probably trying to get a point across, and express your personal opinion along with it, I don't appreciate the lack of tact that is apparent in your writing. When people shout "equality", I don't "blink dumbly and think, Well gay people aren't equal". I think that they have the exact same rights as a straight person: the right to marry a person of the opposite gender. And I don't oppose gay marriage because "the Bible says so", I oppose it because I do not believe that marriage should be applicable to homosexual relationships. I'll have to clarify: I do not support denying homosexual couples the same benefits that heterosexual ones gain from marriage. I am in full support of civil unions and such. But I think that traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman, and it should remain that way.
I believe Daniel Tammet phrased it best when he was asked if he would like to be able to marry his partner: "We should have the same rights to visit in hospitals, to inherit--all the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. But we're not male and female. Why should we have to be shoehorned into something that wasn't made for us? Marriage can be retained for men and women and a separate but equal institution be available to same-sex couples. We are different; let's not only ask other people to respect our difference but also respect it ourselves."
"Most same-sex marriage advocates would say that we should draw the line at “two consenting adults.”"
That seems like a fair statement, until you realize that that allows for a brother to marry his sister, a father to marry his daughter, and a cousin to marry her cousin. In my opinion, a person in support of a homosexual marriage has no reason to be against an incestuous marriage. It's a slippery slope, and I honestly wonder how the government is going to handle it in a few years after homosexual marriage is made completely legal.
It's late and I'm not thinking as clearly as I would like to be. I honestly hope that I haven't offended anyone, but rather, provided some clarity on one side of the argument, which ever side you may be on.