Ban Straight Marriage

In the gay marriage debate, there are three main parties. First are those who believe same sex couples should be able to get married just as opposite sex couples are. Next are those two believe same sex couples should have no special status at all. Finally, there is the middle ground of people who believe that while same sex couples should have most of the same rights as opposite sex couples, the term "marriage" should be reserved for unions between a man and a woman, and same-sex unions should only be allowed civil unions.

I take a little-discussed fourth path. While I believe that couples should have the same rights whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex, I don't believe that either should have the special status that current marriages have. In other words, I don't want to get married; I want a civil union. (Important point #1: As I'm sure my girlfriend is glad to know, I'm willing to compromise on this point.)

Now, for those people who want to get properly married (regardless of your sexual orientation), I think you should still be able to go to a church/synagogue/mosque/satanic altar/pagan shrine/etc. and get married. But I think that marriage should be exclusively within the sphere of the second estate, and should have no official meaning within the secular government. (Important point #2: Yes, I do know that there is no official separation of church and state in Canada, and I think this is a tragedy; I also know that the church and the state are more separate here than in the U.S., where it is official policy.)

There are actually three issues here. The first is: should opposite-sex couples have a different status than same-sex couples. Definitely not, I say. The second is: should there be an official social status ("marriage") for a couple, based on their sexual relationship? Here again, I answer a resounding no. As far as the government is concerned, such a union should be solely an legal distinction, and the pseudo-religious overtones of the term "marriage" should be abandoned. The third is: should there be such legal distinction at all? In other words, should we have incentives favoring one specific type of economic partnership (that of two people who have a sexual relationship) over others? Should we even have civil unions?

I already said I'd like a civil union, but I meant if that option was available to me. Whether I think that option should be available to everyone in my situation is another question.

I always like to think about society as if I was from another planet, and had no experience with Earth society at all. When you do that, you realize how incredibly Orwellian the idea of marriage is. Marriage is the dictation, by the state, of the terms under which you are expected to relate to people sexually, emotionally, and economically. It is such a strong endorsement of one particular way of living--namely, one man and one woman with their biological offspring, with some limited freedom of small variations--that it virtually excludes the reasonable possibility of other ways. We have to remember that the nuclear family is a relatively new concept in human history, having come to primacy only since the industrial revolution, and it doesn't seem to be working so well. (Important point #3: yes, this means I believe in legalization of polygamy (going both ways, of course), but personally, I'm a big fan of monogamy.)

Even without all the legal and economic advantages granted by the government under the name "marriage," the benefits of a partnership between two people--especially for the purposes of raising children--are immense. As someone who currently lives autonomously, I know this firsthand; cooking for one is grossly inefficient. Do we really need special status? Maybe. A couple who shares a house, a car and a bank accound, and has children together, certainly needs to contractually lay out what happens if something goes wrong (divorce, death, etc.), and from a legislative standpoint, it does make a lot of sense to have a standard contract for such an arrangement that every newlywed couple can just sign and not worry too much about. That said, I don't think it makes sense to give tax breaks to people just because they have signed that specific contract and not some variation of it. We need a system that can fairly accomodate not just monogomous marriages, but also polygamous marriages, non-sexual partnerships, cooperative living arrangements, etc.

One lesson we can learn from both natural history and human history is that diversity leads to resilience. Society is currently locked into one mode of operation--the nuclear family--and it's not working so well. We need to encourage diversity of living arrangements so that the best ways of living can win out. And for those of you who think the nuclear family is the best way? Maybe you're right, but there's no harm to you in letting other people experiment with other forms.