I don't like that phrase, and tend not to trust an argument based on it. Any time somebody says, "We must do this for the benefit of society," or "We can't do that because it would harm society," I get a little bit suspicious. It usually turns out that the "society" those folks are talking about is a group limited to them and the people who think like them.
That's why I try to avoid it, and instead speak about the limiting of personal freedoms. It's a much more concrete concept, and much easier to measure.
Let's revisit the Marriage Protection Act as an example. It's backers all claim that we must protect marriage "for the good of society." They almost always fail however in providing any concrete details in exactly what they're protecting marriage from, and how limiting marriage to one man one woman will accomplish that goal. Many times they fall back on the argument that it's the traditional form of marriage, and since it is the most common, it must be the best. While there's some merit to that idea, it can't be accepted blindly. History is full of practices that lasted for centuries, only to be replaced when we outgrew them.
Monarchies, for example.
The fact is that virtually all forms of family arrangement can work, as long as a few simple rules are observed. The primary purpose of a marriage is to raise children to function within the society, and that means that the form of marriage will be dictated by the form of the society.
Take a desert nomadic culture, where infant mortality is high, and each clan faced constant warfare. That society has a vested interest in producing as many babies of the strongest stock as possible, while requiring a surplus of males for fighting off raids. The inevitable result of this environment is a polygamous marriage structure.
So if we want to use "the good of society" as a measure, first we have to define what society we're talking about, and that's nearly imposible in America. We are no longer a homogenous country, if in fact we ever were; for better or worse we are now a large grouping of diffrent cultures, bumping up against each other, causing friction between the groups. Trying to enforce the beliefs of one of those groups on the others will only increase that friction, leading to discord.
So let's take a different approach. Instead of concentrating on the differences between the groups, let's work with what they all have in common, and see where that takes us. One thing we all share is the desire to maximize our personal freedoms; we want to be able to make our own choices. If we approach government from that viewpoint, maximizing personal freom, that leads us to a different criteria for limiting those freedoms. Instead of worrying about how our choices affect society, instead we're looking at whether our choices result in limiting the freedoms of others.
Can anybody make the case that allowing two men to get married will limit the freedoms of anybody else?
I can't. And until that argument is made, then the state has no business interfering.
Posted by Rich at October 5, 2006 6:36 PM | TrackBackI don't know how I stumbled across your blog but it pretty entertaining. I like how you make talking politics interesting. I don't totally agree with you on some things but I give you credit for putting your opinion out there.
Posted by: Sara on October 6, 2006 9:49 PMIt all depends if you call creating economic instability, if even for a short time, a limitation of freedom. The tax system for federal and state governments are partly based on historical rates of marriage btween men and women. How will same sex marriage affect government revenues? The same argument can be made for Social Security survivors benefits. A large number of same-sex marriages could accelerate the expected shortfall in Social Security. Health insurance from work can, in most cases, be extended to cover your dependants and spouse. Again, the actuarial tables used to calaculate the insurance rates are based on our existng definition of marriage. What will happen when a surge of new marrieds is tossed into the mix. Keep in mind, the gay population have a disproportionate percentage suffering for HIV and AIDS (though nowhere near as bad as IV drug users), don't you think that will affect the rates you pay? There are many benefits, and a few drawbacks, to being married in this country. Adding a new class of married to the existing system cannot help but create confusion and disruption. Prove to me the economic impact will be minimal, that I will still be able to afford insurance, that Social Security is not going to be bankrupt 6 years ahead of schedule, that my taxes will not have to increase to compensate for the sudden increase of people filing married, and I will support same sex marriage. It's not morality, it's economic impact that is the sole logical reason to oppose creating new classes of married.
Posted by: Brad on October 7, 2006 10:22 AMHi Brad,
No, I do not regard economic consequences as a limitation of freedom, certainly not on a par with telling adult citizens who they can marry.
There may be an economic consequence, but there's literally no way to determine its magnitude. You'd have to be able to figure out how many gay couples would marry; what their divorce rate would be, and what their economic circumstances would be in order to determine their effect on tax collections. We can make a gues by studying ddata from countries that allow same sex marriages, but there's no guarantee it would apply here. For example, Sweden does allow same sex marriage, and tracks them along with traditional marriages. In Sweden, same sex marrieges acount for 0.5% of all marriages, and those marriages were roughly twice as likely to end in divorce.
Figuring from these numbers, it is hard to project an economic crisis arising from same sex marriage.
Ironically, your argument is very similar to one advanced by the Confederate States over the issue of abolition, which points to the fatal flaw in your premise. Slavery was an unjust policy that had to be ended, regardless of the economic consequences. Now, those cosequences should have been considered when deciding how to end it, but they didn't affect the basic decision.
It's the same here. We have a miscarriage of justice that should be corrected. The economic consequences, if any, should be considered in determining how to correct the problem, but not in deciding whether to correct the problem.
Posted by: rich on October 8, 2006 5:01 PMHi, Rich,
First, don't discount the economic effects, it will cost serious money when the marriage laws are liberalized. Secondly, just as laws that eliminated slavery prevented discrimination not just based on race, but extended protections to other groups, any law codifying same sex marriage will need to remove virtually all restrictions on marriage, except for age.
Finally, let's solve the same sex marriage issue the way slavery was solved. Two or three constitutional amendments, and dozens of laws and court rulings. Just as the Emancipation Proclamation had very little effect until the supporting legislation was passed, rulings from state supreme courts will only antagonize the populous unless they become codified.
To correct this "miscarriage of justice" is going to take a lot more than just allowing city hall to issue marriage licenses to non-traditional couples. Besides containing the loonies on both extremes of this issue, the more serious among us need to carefully consider what other legislation is needed. Personally, I say let the insurance companies work out their own problems, let everyone designate a survivor for social security benefits (not necessarily a spouse) and let's remove the concept of "married filing jointly" from all tax laws.
Posted by: Brad on October 8, 2006 10:18 PM