A Monograph on Mono-Gendered Monogamy

On the debate of gay marriage, I am of the opinion that a rational person, presented with a rational argument, cannot help but be persuaded to the pro- side. If, of course, one's moral or emotional or religious state is such that one cannot accept the (inescapable, in my view) conclusion, then I fear I am quite at a loss to any means of persuasion on this earth. Such questions I leave to the priests, the psychologists, and the philosophers. In the following I present a solely rational defense of gay marriage.

First, of course, one must agree on what the term "marriage" means. For merely an issue of semantics, this would seem to be unnaturally important. As no doubt you have heard before, many people define marriage as "a sacred bond (between a man and a woman.)" We shall come back to that parenthetical statement later. But first, let us address what is meant by a "sacred bond." A marriage is often understood to be a religious affair. After all, one is generally married in a church, or by a religious personage, etc. However, atheists get married, so the ritual cannot be purely religious. And it is a union under law as well, meaning that the state is involved in some way, and required to recognize it. States, after all, issue marriage licenses, and the married couple is afterwards given a new legal status, including different rights--social security and inheritance, for instance. Marriage, thus being a lawful and religious affair, is an odd hybrid--but that's all right; providing that the government "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (1st Amendment)" in other words, no favoritism.

Now, we have established marriage as a legal affair. It can, in turn, also be religious, but it has no obligation to be, as required by the 1st Amendment. The question becomes--well, who can marry? The states have been given, by the US Supreme Court, some ability to regulate who marries whom. Age restrictions, for instance, or laws against incest, are standard in most states. However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the states may not prohibit two people from marrying arbitrarily--there must be a valid reason. This is why mixed-race marriage restrictions were thrown out in the south in 1967 as unconstitutional.

Finally, we may turn to the statement "between one man and one woman." Under this current designation (which is up to the states), 49 out of 50 states disallow marriage between same-sex couples. According to rulings by the Supreme Court, the states are allowed to restrict who marries whom--for valid reasons. Therefore, if there is a valid, non-religious reason that same-sex marriages should be prohibited, then their restriction is not problematic.

However, the difficulty comes when trying to explain what, exactly, is the reason that same-sex couples should not be wed. Religious objections are not sufficient--the government can make no law respecting any institution of religion--and indeed, some religions have happily volunteered to marry gay couples. If the objection is that such a marriage cannot possibly produce children--well then, the marriage of a sterile individual or an individual past childbearing age should be similarly prohibited.

Morality, it is then offered, is the objection. Same-sex marriages, opponents say, are immoral, and it is the role of the state to regulate morality. The "immorality" of gay relationships was restricted by sodomy laws in many states previously, under these same premises. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws that restricted the sexual relationships between consenting adults, thus removing the ability of the state to police this aspect of "morality."

Economics, then, say opponents. European countries allowed same-sex marriage, and look what happened to them: plummeting birth rates, higher divorce rates, dwindling populations. At first glance, this seems a viable argument--but upon closer inspection, it falls apart. Why on Earth would gays getting married change the percentages of straight marriage and childbearing? I don't think even the most radically anti-homosexual religious nut would boycott marriage and parenthood in protest. No, Europe's lower birthrates/higher divorce rates/lower populations have nothing to do with gay marriage. (Look at Massachusetts, the only state with same-sex marriage, and also the lowest divorce rate in the country.) Instead, these figures rely on the increased cost of raising children as opposed to the financial benefit of having children, a trend which is currently widespread over the Western world. If we want more people to get together and procreate, for the "good of the nation", (a debatable point,) we should offer better prenatal care, social programs, healthcare, and monetary support for families. But really, is there any danger people are going to stop having babies?

And so, we are left with one final coherent objection to same-sex marriage--tradition. It is deeply rooted in the public consciousness (and indeed, in public policy), that the tradition of marriage is the basis of the family unit and even Western civilization as we know it. This is the coveted "sanctity of marriage" which features prominently in arguments such as these. But let us look deeper into the tradition of marriage.

A traditional marriage is a legal and religious union of a man and a woman in order to bear children. The husband traditionally has the obligation of working and providing for his family, and the wife traditionally rears the children, cares for the house, and obeys her husband. This is the traditional idea of marriage, as has been in place for hundreds of years. Is it the responsibility of the state to uphold this tradition, for the good of society?

The answer, of course, is no. No government that promises liberty to its people can possibly restrict the definition of marriage so. Married women work, and married men raise children and care for the house. The concept of the "man of the house" as a final authority is becoming less and less popular. Couples live apart, choose not to have children, have "open" relationships, divorce, separate, and otherwise defy the traditional restrictions of marriage and civil unions. Law cannot touch this; and neither can it touch the issue of gay marriage.

Imagine, for a minute, the marriage of an atheist couple who are incapable of having children; the woman plans to work, the man to stay home, and the two to have an "open" relationship with regards to other romantic liasons. These two can be married, and indeed must be allowed to marry, despite this union flying in the face of religious, traditional, and "moral" guidelines. Why, then, cannot a gay couple marry? (I am, of course, not suggesting that gay couples are more prone to polygamy or polyamory; or even that polygamy or polyamory is immoral or even undesireable. I merely make the point that it contradicts a "traditional" ideal of morality, like same-sex marriage.)

There is no logical reason that marriage should be prohibited to gay couples--in fact, doing so is unconstitutional.

The idea of civil unions taking the place of marriages for gay couples has been suggested and put into practice by several states. Civil unions offer gay couples most of the rights given under law to married couples--but not all. The status of the civil union is decidedly lower than that of the civil marriage, and thus it is unfair to present it as an "equal" alternative.

Even if, however, civil unions afforded same-sex couples the exact same rights as a marriage license, this would not be acceptable. As ruled by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education and several other cases during the civil rights movement, the designation "separate but equal" is decidedly unconstitutional. The civil union as a separate-but-equal alternative to the traditional lawful marriage, then, is clearly not tolerable.

Therefore, the only logical, lawful course of action is recognition of same-sex marriage by all fifty states, and a recognition by the US government that any prohibition of marriage to a couple because of their gender is not valid under law.