06.18.09
On Same-Sex Unions
We should first consider that one of the founding principles of the United States of America was a church and state separation. With such a principle applied in practice, we may then say that the government should have no say whatsoever in how a church chooses to recognize marriage, and the church should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the government chooses to recognize same-sex unions. As marriage recognized by American law can take place outside of a church just as well as inside, we cannot bring religion into the discussion, as we are not a religiously affiliated country. Thus for the purposes of government we do not need to consider if the church recognizes same-sex unions or not.
We next must consider what effect the government’s recognition of marriage has on the people so to decide whether or not it would benefit same-sex couples to be recognized in a similar union. To be brief, the governmental benefits are, for the most part, only tax-related. There are no laws currently in place which mandate an employer to recognize a spouse in terms of health care, dental insurance, etc. However, it may be generalized that were the government to recognize same-sex unions, insurance companies and employers would have very little wiggle room to avoid the same recognition and equalizing of benefits across the board. With this in mind, the government should recognize same-sex unions to encourage equal benefits for everyone.
This, however, brings in the question of equality for all people, not just all couples. For if the argument is one that all people should have equal governmental benefits, then we cannot use marriage or unions as a basis for recognition, for there are some who are neither married, nor engaged in a same-sex partnership, and shall never be. Thus if we are to argue that all people must have an equal opportunity for one thing or for another, then the criteria must be a milestone reasonably and forseeably achievable by all people, regardless of marital status or living situation. Though many people find a life partner, it cannot be deduced that all people will, while it can be deduced that all people will reach the age of fifty, or that if they do not, they should not have a care one way or the other whether they’ve received a tax benefit, health care coverage, etc. So we cannot say that people are treated equally unless the legislation is based on something like age rather than domestic living situation.
We may therefore say that by providing benefits for married couples, it is implied that such a government prefers or encourages co-habitation over a solitary dwelling. If this is the case, then the government, as we’ve seen, has already chosen to treat people differently based on domestic status, and if such a distinction can be made as to what sort of domestic arrangement is held by a person or persons, then it follows logically that said government may also set up rules which dictate what they will recognize as an acceptable domestic arrangement, for they’ve already been given the power to say that one way of living is preferable to another. Thus, the government should be able to define what it recognizes as acceptable co-habitation.
At last, we must consider if the government remains within the doctrine of a separate church and state. Currently, the American government explicitly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Some will argue that this mixes church and state, but this is false because the Defense of Marriage Act does not state that marriage is between a man and a woman because the Bible instructs us so. One may infer that America’s Christian roots have led to laws which reflect Christianity, but it cannot be stated as fact and if it is not a fact, then there is nothing to debate because a government must make laws based on something, and unless that something is explicitly stated to be associated with the rules of a religion, then we must conclude that the rules are only what those officials whom we have elected into office believe to be the best rules to govern the people. Thus we may also conclude that the government has every right to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and co-habitation as a man and a woman living together and that this does not mix the offices of church and state.
Finally, it must be noted that the institution of marriage is one that was designed to symbolize one person’s commitment to another. Because a government does or does not recognize that commitment does not mean that the commitment cannot be made. If the argument for government recognition of same-sex unions is for benefits alone, then we’ve already seen that the argument must extend outside the boundaries of any unions for the argument to hold weight in a secular, non-religious community. If the argument is the desire to have a symbolic representation of one person’s commitment to another, then you may gather with friends and family, exchange vows, exchange rings, or do whatever seems best to you, and you shall still have that symbolic representation, for marriage existed long before governments became involved with excessive paperwork and regulations. It is not necessary for a government to recognize commitment unless you expect to receive some benefit or another in return.
Dolan Morgan said,
February 6, 2010 at 19:28 pm
This same argument and rationale, paragraph by paragraph, can be made against mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity marriages. In the past, similar arguments were put forward in places where those marriages were contentious.
In the future, I hope both arguments are seen as equally reprehensible and absurd.
Not surprisingly, when these arguments were made regarding race, the underlying reason for promoting the rationale was not the merit of the rationale itself — but an underlying and steadfast distrust and disrespect for other races and ethnicities.
Though there is a great deal of careful pontificating and cautious reasoning here, one has to wonder whether the same undercurrent holds true in this case. How else can such socially constructed and arbitrary distinctions regarding marriage be posited and argued so passionately for — other than as a product of our own bias and bigotry?
When it comes to debating race or sexual orientation’s role in marriage, I propose that the following two characteristics are directly proportional: 1) carefully reasoned passion for arbitrary distinctions and 2) biased, unfounded dogmatism.
Josh said,
May 24, 2010 at 19:01 pm
Late as this response may be, I think it appropriate.
You have known me in the past to know that I hold no such distrust or disrespect for the homosexual population in my heart. Indeed, many of my finest friends are homosexuals. To suggest that my own views are merely left or right propaganda is to tell me that you have lived so long inside of a left-wing bubble that you are not capable of separating yourself so as to objectively consider a situation in which someone disagrees with you. Posit an argument, not a tirade.
However, in the interest of objectivity, let me point out a place where you are wrong, which is in the paragraph regarding the Defense of Marriage Act in which a law outlines what our (like it or not) elected government defines as what it will recognize as marriage. This was never done with mixed-race marriages, or if it was, such laws were overturned, thus rendering your initial statement ineffective, if not moot. Nowhere in my argument did I make a suggestion about what should or should not be in legislation, except as regards religion, which has little bearing on our present discussion. I merely pointed out the appropriate enforcement of the current legislation. If you’d like to see it changed so that homosexuals can marry under the US Government, by all means, petition to do so and I will fully support you. But please do not propagate immature liberal idealism as though I had somehow gone ahead and slandered it in the first place. Laws are laws. They can, and often should be changed, but that gives no one the right to disregard them simply because we do not like them.