Gay marriage

I heard a gay marriage proponent on NPR the other day claim his cause was a matter of “civil rights”.

What, legally speaking, is marriage? From the standpoint of law and policy it is simply an arrangement of tax, property, and insurance laws conferring benefits on two people—and, of course, the approbation and legitimacy such benefits provide. Do we have a right to a set of tax, property, and insurance benefits and to public endorsement of our lifestyles? I don’t think so. The state chooses to recognize marriage relationships (which will always exist in churches, synagogues and mosques apart from whatever legal benefits accrue to them) to encourage them. Do we have a right to be encouraged in whatever lifestyle or family relationships we choose? No. In fact most possible choices we make about our lives go unnoticed, much less approved or disapproved, by the government.

There is no right to marriage benefits, and withholding them does not harm gay couples. Withholding the moniker “marriage” from gay relationships does not prevent the formation of such relationships; in fact it hinders them not at all. Gays retain every bit as much “negative freedom” to do what they will as heterosexuals do. Gay couples do, clearly, lack as much “positive freedom” (the freedom to call themselves “married” and to claim tax benefits), but, as of Lawrence vs. Texas, they can live their lives every bit as much in the open as heterosexual couples can.

Gay marriage activists cry equal protection. They argue that the government cannot give benefits to one group of citizens and arbitrarily deny them to another. True—but the government can deny benefits to citizens if the denial isn’t arbitrary. The government gives veterans benefits to veterans, but denies them to others; the denial isn’t discrimination, it is common sense, and it is a way to honor veterans, a special class of citizens whom the government specifically wants to reward. The government can deny you marriage benefits if you are not participating in the thing called “marriage”, the definition of which was simply taken for granted for, approximately, all of human history.

So the effort to mandate gay marriage is an attempt to redefine what marriage is. Gay marriage activists should be more honest about that intent. And they should also recognize they do not have a “civil right” to redefine an ancient custom for our whole society, and largely without our input. If such redefinition is to occur, it should be the conscious, willed decision of the whole society after a long, long discussion, debate, and careful thought. The attempt to impose acceptance for gay marriage through courts is short-circuiting democratic process (expanding Liberalism at the expense of democracy, as I wrote about below). It is a partisan ploy, it is insulting, and even the most liberal of activists should hope for its failure. The debate about gay marriage can continue, but it should leave the vocabulary of rights behind.