Why I oppose gay marriage

"That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny."  --Emma Goldman

I oppose legalizing gay marriage for the reason I oppose all legal marriage:  because state sanctioned marriage is wrong.  It gives one group of people--couples in committed relationships--a set of rights and privileges denied others.  Those who are single, divorced, widowed, or in short-term or multiple relationships are slighted under the law, while those who are married are favored by preferential tax treatment and other economic benefits.  Furthermore, marriage is a religious institution which has no place being licensed or regulated by a secular government.

The areas affording discriminatory benefits to married couples are legion, among them immigation law, tax law, social security regulation, health care and other insurance benefits, pension benefits, car rentals, and association memberships like health clubs.  There is no intrinsic reason for giving the married person these special benefits, as a couple has greater economic power to begin with by virtue of their shared resources and expenses.  By bestowing or sanctioning special favors on married couples at the expense of everyone else, the government is promoting marriage.  But should the government be in the business of promoting marriage?  Shouldn't the government be neutral regarding a person's involvement in personal relationships, neither rewarding nor opposing any and all?

Marriage has been around so long that it seems the only natural expression of committed love between two people, but marriage has historically not been solely or even primarily about love; it has been a legal, social, and religious contract.  This contract has been about 1) control of women, 2) ownership of children, and 3) public regulation of consensual sexual activity.  If we still believe that these are valid social goals, and marriage is the best way to attain them, then government licensing of marriage makes sense.  But as a society we are coming to believe that 1) women should not be subjugated, 2) paternity is best established by medical tests, and 3) consensual sexual activity between adults is "nobody's business."  From a legal-social standpoint, marriage has no purpose beyond conferring a set of special benefits to those who can join the club.

One area where licensed marriage has some practical benefits is in the distribution of property in the event of death or divorce.  Without a pre-eminent indisputable record of affectional ties, this can be an even messier situation than it usually is.  However, the courts are having to sort through this, anyway, due to the large number of unmarried people who are cohabitating.  This and other conundrums will be sorted out, with or without legal marriage, as we continue to transition out of a society that expects almost everyone to marry young and stay married.

How did we ever have such expectations of marriage to begin with?  The answer to this, of course, is religion.  In its role of enforcer of male dominance, patriarchal religion has had a vested interest in near-universal marriage, and marriage laws have always evolved out of (or been dictated by) religion.  Patriarchal religion has defined what marriage is, how marriage is viewed, and how marriage is regulated.

But to be fair, religion has another interest in marriage that transcends the authoritarian.  Many couples view their relationship as a spiritual union, something to be divinely witnessed, sanctioned, and celebrated.  Thus religion can have an important place even in egalitarian relationships.

So if we're really going to have separation of church and state, why not give marriage to the churches?  Historically they've defined marriage, they've advocated marriage, they're performing most of the marriage ceremonies--why not let them continue to regulate marriage and get the state out of the equation?  Gay people who want to get married can do so in a church that recognizes gay marriage.  Non-religious people who feel their relationship is not legitimate without marriage can be married in a ceremony of their choosing.  People can be married because they say they're married.  Marriage can mean whatever it means to the people who are married, but it does not have to mean that married people are treated better than everyone else.

It hurts me that many gays and lesbians have chosen to react to oppression by seeking inclusion in a discriminatory institution.  Gays and lesbians could be a force of opposition to legalized marriage.  Instead, many are shoring up the institution by seeking to be included in it.  I believe that, far from breaking down the institution of marriage, gay marriage will solidify the institution in the very areas where it needs to weaken.  It will do this by giving another group of people a vested interest in the continuation of its privileges.  I remember a time when most lesbians opposed  marriage because of its history in subjugating women.  I see the current push for gay marriage not as any kind of progress, but as an expression of the conservative backwash this country is currently mired in.

I'm also disappointed in People for the American Way, usually on the correct side of First Amendment issues, for advocating gay marriage by rationalizing that marriage is "a secular institution."  If marriage is a secular institution, the United States really is a Judeo-Christian nation, and I'm the Pope.

How do we end legalized marriage?  Ultimately by disempowering states to grant marriage licenses and by changing all laws which treat people in a certain way based on their marital status.  This can be done most easily with a constitutional amendment to ban ALL marriage.  The Supreme Court could also do this by recognizing state sanctioned and protected marriage as the violation of church/state separation that it is.  Laws can be passed banning discriminatory treatment of non-married people in the private sector as well.  

I have to warn everyone, though:  it won't be easy.  The vested interests in legal marriage have their heels as well as their heads dug in the sand.  We can avoid making things worse by not extending legalized marriage to groups who don't already have it and by opposing "civil unions," which perpetuate most of the abuses.  We can refuse to get married in protest.  We can also GET married to people we aren't amorously involved with and tell everyone the marriage was to get pension benefits or a discount on a club membership, thereby exposing the "sanctity" of this kind of marriage for what it is.  We don't need the state to sanction our intimate relationships, and for the sake of everyone, we need to tell the government to get out.

P.S. This is my first diary