Legalize gay marriage

Home Opinion Legalize gay marriage

As of Jan. 27, 2015, 36 states recognize gay marriage. Fourteen ban it legislatively, constitutionally, or both. This controversy forces us to consider what marriage is, and what the state should recognize. “Traditional” marriage proponents appeal to new natural law theory, the Bible, civil unions, marriage’s social function, and the “slippery slope” to keep marriage heterosexually exclusive. Yet all fail to support their case.

In their essay, “What is Marriage?” Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson answer their question with new natural law. They call marriage a comprehensive union between one man and one woman, specially linked to children, that most closely follows marital norms to facilitate childrearing. This comprehensive union hinges on biological union with a unique reproductive end. The special link to children is ideally biological. The “uniqueness” of their biological union and children enable heterosexual couples to best uphold marital norms, such as fidelity and monogamy.

Yet this definition is imperfect. While sex’s biological end is reproduction, not every copulating couple seeks it. Asserting reproduction is the good of sex tacitly claims sex is not a good in itself, and that all couples engaging in non-reproductive sex neglect its good. Yet most sexually active couples would consider sex a good in itself because it bolsters relationships, gratifies their partner, and demonstrates affection. In fact, research confirms childbearing isn’t necessarily the highest good sought in marriage. A 2010 Pew survey showed far more married and unmarried people ranked love, lifelong commitment, and companionship above having children as “very important” reasons for marriage. These more important qualities of a healthy marriage make copulation almost irrelevant, especially to state definition.

Concerning homosexuality, biblical inerrancy deserves attention. Those who believe the Bible inerrant essentially claim, “God said it, I believe it,” when discussing homosexuality. However, this means they should believe slavery is justifiable and women cannot speak in church. But most readers (myself once included) elide this, excusing slavery and women’s place in church as contemporary cultural beliefs. Why is homesexuality the timeless exception? Is it because the Bible said so, or because many consider homosexual sex “unnatural,” as it contradicts their heteronormative experience, and they consult the Bible — a cultural authority — for backup?

Many seeking to reserve “marriage” to heterosexuals suggest the civil union as a viable alternative for homosexuals. However, gay couples not only seek marriage’s benefits  — some of which a civil union provides —  but also its status. A Williams Institute study found gay couples likelier to marry if marriage were an option than accept a marriage equivalent with similar benefits in a state barring gay marriage. Similarly, heterosexual couples given the choice between marriage and a marriage-equivalent union overwhelmingly chose marriage. If both can uphold marital norms and  — if desired — raise children, then both couples should have the same choice. Differences in sexual union quality should not invite discrimination.

Debating Same-Sex Marriage co-author Maggie Gallagher claims legally labeling same-sex unions “marriage” will “change the public meaning of marriage…” as to “…make it harder for marriage to perform its core civil functions over time.” But what are these civil functions, and can only heterosexual couples achieve them?

The word “marriage” here means much. Childless marriages combine finances, cohabitate, and pay taxes. Yet does this union have a “core civic function” outside enforcing the couple’s marital norms? Gallagher seems to hint at the civic functions of families (with children), such as childrearing, providing identity among members, and cultural transmission. Government programs such as welfare, healthy school lunches, breakfasts, and child protective services assume and reinforce this focus. This is especially true of children who have aged out of foster care: They are more likely to become homeless, couch surf, commit crimes, remain unemployed, receive government benefits, abuse drugs, and have children out of wedlock. If families improve children’s lives, then a state concerned for unadopted children should encourage both adoption and same-sex marriage.

Some argue legalizing gay marriage could create a “slippery slope,” giving polyamorous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships marriage’s sanction. But this whole debate has shown marriage has specific criteria; lawmakers will examine each case to see if it fulfills them: Is it good for children? Healthy for spouses? Consensual? Unlike these “unions,” gay couples answer these questions affirmatively, and provide benefits. They facilitate childrearing; promote healthy, monogamous sex between two partners; and involve mutual consent.

Instead of merely pondering what marriage is, we must ask why we marry; our answer will help clarify what marriage is. As I watch my peers engage and marry, their reasons are clear: “We love each other, and want to spend the rest of our lives together.” Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike agree to monogamy and fidelity: For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, as long as we both shall live. If all are equal, why do we think heterosexual couples fulfill that bond better?