What’s in a name?

Since nothing earth shattering has happened recently in the presidential primaries (Obama won, McCain got endorsed, etc.) I think I'll talk about that gay thing.

On the bright side, this campaign season gay issues (marriage, adoption, DOMA, DADT, etc.) have been pretty quiet. I say 'on the bright side' not because I don't think those are important issues, but because I think they're issues that tend to get abused and horribly mismanaged. I would rather see a slow steady path toward progress than an all or nothing screaming match that inspires knee-jerk reactions (see: DOMA, DADT, the Federal Marriage Amendment, statutes in 49 states, etc.).

I have to admit I actually did some reading for this one. Same-Sex Marriage Pro & Con: A Reader by Andrew Sullivan. Granted, it didn't tell me much that I didn't already know, but I wanted to cover my bases on this one (plus the bookstore didn't have the novel I was looking for and I needed something to read before bed).

Gay marriage is the biggie. You have those 1,138 federal provisions that depend on marital status. I wouldn't begin to claim that I understand all of them or even some of them. I'm not a lawyer nor am I versed in the epic morass of documents we call a legislative code. I know some of them include things like spousal privilege and social security benefits and hospital visitation rights. Honestly even if it was only those three things, I would contend that it is a strong enough case for gay marriage.

The odd part is that many of the opponents of gay marriage aren't opposed to extending the provisions to gay couples. They favor the 'civil union' answer to gay marriage. For the life of me I have never been able to figure out why that doesn't reek of 'separate but equal' to the proponents, but they insist that it isn't. The arguments in favor of gay marriage are all pretty straightforward and, ultimately, boring. Equality, fairness, truth, justice, and the American way, and other high minded ideals that, while true, do not make for interesting reading material. Instead we'll be perusing (and attempting to counter) the more entertaining arguments against gay marriage.

These could be ordered in any number of other ways... they aren't... but they could be!

1) Lassie

This is my favorite one. If you let a man marry another man, then you'll have to let a man marry a dog. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it.) The people who use this argument are fond of asking why we can't allow it since it doesn't hurt any person and it's just a moral distinction. To them I say okay. I challenge anyone to find me a dog (or any other animal) that can sign a legally binding contract. Until a dog is smart enough to understand, accept, and be bound by a contract they can't get married. Once they can I suppose it would be a different story, but if we have sentient dogs and cats running around I think we have bigger problems to worry about.

2) All in the Family

Moving down the line of poor arguments against gay marriage we hit incest. At least both parties are capable of signing legally binding contracts this time. The fact is that the statutes against incest are pretty weak anyway. In general its legal as long as they're at least as distant as first cousins, though it depends on the state. Closer relationships than that (parents, siblings, etc.) are illegal for reasons other than morality. Mainly medical concerns (which are not as significant as they once were) and equality of power. A modern marriage is a union of equals. There is no equality between parents and children, no matter how old they are. The parent always wields the authority over the child. Between siblings that equality could exist, but it rarely does.

3) Barney

Next we get pedophilia. I find the topic distasteful so I'll be brief. Recycle the last two arguments and combine them. No equality of power. No authority to enter legally binding contracts. And we're done.

4) Three's Company

Polygamy, Polyamory, Polywannacracker.. Okay maybe not so much that last one, but you get the idea. The argument goes like this: If you can marry any ONE you want, why not any TWO? The real argument against polyamorous marriage is the equality of power but I'll admit it's tenuous. It's certainly conceivable that multiple people could enter a perfectly equal relationship if its done with the full knowledge and consent of all parties. I'm forced to back into the less politically appealing argument of "not my problem." Basically it comes down to this: Gay marriage should be judged on it's own merits or faults; not on the merits or faults of a subsequent issue that may or may not arise. I don't have to argue against polyamorous marriages because it isn't the issue at hand. If and when it is the issue at hand I will consider the facts and judge it accordingly. Frankly if gay marriage makes the argument against polyamorous marriage that week, it wasn't a very good argument to begin with.

5) Married with Children

Marriage exists to encourage people to make babies and raise them. Wait, what? There's no ban on the infertile or disinterested from getting married. Last I checked the last part of the vows right before "I do." isn't "Will you swear to make babies?" The counter to that argument is usually along the lines of 'they might have a miracle baby'. Sure, so could the gay couple, but when did our laws become based on the possibility of miracles?

6) Who wants to Marry a Millionaire?

Marriage is sacrosanct and this would force the churches to perform gay weddings. I'll counter this on two fronts. First of all, no one can force the churches to perform ceremonies and there are already some churches that will perform the ceremony. As for this sanctity of marriage, its true, marriage should be sacrosanct; but with shotgun weddings in Vegas by superstars that last less time than some wedding ceremonies and marriage proposal game shows I think that ship has sailed. The conservative states that tend to oppose gay marriage also tend to have the highest divorce rates while liberal Massachusetts has the lowest in the country.


So what’s in a name?

From a practical perspective having two parallel structures with identical legal benefits just requires twice as much paperwork. If people are really that caught up on calling it marriage, and polls have shown that they are, then we should eliminate marriage entirely from the federal legislation. Replace it with “civil union” in all instances and open it up to same sex couples. That way the church can keep their word, gay people can get their equality, and the rest of the country can go back to worrying about things like the economy or global warming.

Stay tuned for the sequel "DOMA, DADT, and Penguins."