Three Cheers for Marrying Whoever You Damn Well Please!

[dianahsieh]

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

First, via GVH, I found this interesting NY Times article on the history behind the Loving v. Virginia case that ultimately legalized interracial marriage. That case was decided just 41 years ago. I'm very grateful -- in a very personal way -- that race is no longer a factor in marriage in America. It's not a legal obstacle whatsoever, and not even much of a social obstacle. That's absolutely wonderful.

Second, the California Supreme Court has ruled that laws restricting marriage to heterosexuals violate the state's constitution. While I might not agree with the reasoning of the court, I do wholeheartedly support gay marriage. The essence of marriage is the total integration of two lives: sexually, legally, socially, financially, geographically, sexually, morally, etc. The fact that most marriages involve two people with contrasting genitalia is not of any grand significance. My marriage, for example, has far more in common with the relationship of a committed, rational lesbian couple than to the now-dissolved insane marriage between Brittney Spears and Kevin Federline.

Significantly, to recognize gay marriage as fundamentally similar to heterosexual marriage -- i.e. as a primary, enduring relationship fundamentally integrating two lives -- is not a lapse into subjectivism. That's because such integration is only possible with certain kinds and numbers of people.

1. Marriage to beasts is impossible, as the marriage relationship requires the capacity for rationality, not to mention a basic equality in rights. The relationship involved in pet or livestock ownership is wholly different even from that of a fleeting and unserious romantic relationship.

2. Marriage to children is excluded for the same basic reason: children are not yet able to fully exercise even the basic rationality required to live independently. That capacity for independence is required for the integration of lives involved in marriage. In other words, a child has no financial, social, moral, or legal life of his own to integrate with another person. Of course, I need not even mention the abhorrent evil of foisting a sexual relationship on a child.

3. Polygamous marriage is excluded because whatever relationships would result from multiple unions would be fundamentally different than that of a two-person marriage. Most polygamous marriages, I suspect, would not be a genuine integration at all, but rather a juxtaposed set of individual marriages, each half-starved due to competing demands on time, resources, and attention. Even if the various husbands and wives do live a single, integrated life together, the resulting relationships would be hugely different than an ordinary marriage. Decisions might be made by majority vote. (Sorry Sally, but you were outvoted: we're moving to North Dakota.) Social norms would be completely different. (Do I have to invite all Joe's wives to dinner, or just the mother of our daughter's classmate?) The laws governing divorce, child custody, medical power of attorney, inheritance, testifying against a spouse, and so on would have to be totally re-worked. (If I don't have a medical power of attorney, which husband directs the course of my medical care while I'm in a coma? If I die, how will my property be divided? Also, should each person be able to marry multiple people?) Notably, sex is basically a two-person activity, so that would have to be juxtaposed, rather than integrated. Basically, polygamous relationships -- even if somehow recognized by law (and I don't oppose that) -- would be fundamentally different from marriages between two persons, whether of the same or opposite sex, along multiple dimensions.

   Marriage is an extremely important institution in a civilized culture. It's the full-blown, across-the-board public commitment to share one's life with another person. It's a fundamental value in life that my gay friends deserve just as much as my straight ones.

   So... as the title of the post says: "Three Cheers for Marrying Whoever You Damn Well Please!"

   (Note: I have no idea whether my co-bloggers agree with me on this issue. They can speak for themselves...)

   http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003610.html

[DavidOdden]

The fundamental issue regarding the legality of certain forms of marriage is, what is the proper role of government. One of them regards protecting the rights of individuals, for which reason marriage of children (actual children, not technical minors) is properly prohibited -- children lack the capacity to properly choose between marriage and non-marriage. The concept of marriage to an animal is of course meaningless since animals have no rights and can neither consent nor refuse (though they can resist).

Once issues of volition and rights-protection are cleared away, it simply is not the proper concern of government to say whether there has to be some matching of skin color, or mismatching of genitalia. Nor is it properly the business of government to determine whether a marriage involving three or four people is "meaningful" or a "rational integration of values". Indeed, if the government were to start imposing a "rational integration" test on couples, the marriage rate would plummet (now, maybe that would be a good thing). At any rate, that is not the business of the government, any more than it is the business of the government to determine that Islam or Catholicism is fundamentally irrational and therefore prohibited by law. The government has no business at all sanctioning any such voluntary relationships.

[Capitalism Forever]

At any rate, that is not the business of the government, any more than it is the business of the government to determine that Islam or Catholicism is fundamentally irrational and therefore prohibited by law.

Of course not. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that Islam and Catholicism are indeed irrational, aren't they? The government has no business to prohibit them, but I'd much rather live in a society where they were never heard of. And the same applies to gay "marriage," and to homosexuality in general.

[DavidOdden]

Of course not. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that Islam and Catholicism are indeed irrational, aren't they? The government has no business to prohibit them, but I'd much rather live in a society where they were never heard of. And the same applies to gay "marriage," and to homosexuality in general.

I would of course prefer a society where religions are all distant historical memories. On the other hand, I don't care about homosexuality at all, so I can't say that I prefer to live in a society where there were no homosexuals. I also don't care about Prokofiev, but he doesn't offend me to the point that I'd need to leave the room if it were being played. Of course I would never select Prokofiev myself.

[Qwertz]

There was a time when I had little opposition to the government providing a sort of short-form "marriage contract" to cover all those legally cognizable matters associated with marriage - joint property, intestacy, power of attorney, &c. But really, even in this very limited role, the state ends up acting like an attorney, advising couples on what legal features they should or should not incorporate into their relationship. The more I think about it, the less I like even this limited role. Government should stay out of the business of giving legal advice.

(I should point out that I am opposed to gay marriage only in the current legal/political context - a position I explored in a recent blog entry. The short form of that position is that in the case of gay marriage (and perhaps in all cases), Equal Protection does not provide a valid excuse for expanding the welfare state. I am not, nor have I ever been, opposed to gay couples enjoying the same legitimate legal protections, founded in contract, enjoyed by straight couples.)

I'm with David in that government should play no role in marriage except in enforcing valid contracts.

~Q