Jonathan Rauch, in his “The Case for Gay (and Straight) Marriage” contends that marriage is
necessary for “civilizing young males,” and should, therefore, be extended to gay men. Young
men tend to be violent and unstable, self-destructive and wild, and, statistically speaking, tend to
settle down when lawfully wed. Society, then, has a vested interest in protecting itself by
extending the franchise.But most of the young males who threaten society with their hooliganism and “wilding” and
gangbanging are heterosexual. How often do packs of young gay guys harassing straight men and
spray painting rainbow pyramids on bridges and subway cars make the news?
Rauch’s argument is also weak because it fails the same test he uses for rejecting a major
argument against gay marriage–that of arguing for procreation as the main reason marriage should
take place. Couples beyond childbearing years should not be excluded from marriage for that
reason, and men beyond their “wilding” days, who presumably need no civilizing, should not be
beyond the reach of wedlock either. Beyond that, Rauch’s “it civilizes young men” argument
excludes lesbians and assumes that young women never misbehave; the ever-increasing rate of
female incarceration puts the lie to that.
Most problematic, Rauch doesn’t address why marriage should be the government’s concern at
all. If we merely want to reduce the threat that young men pose to the social order, why not enlist
them for some kind of service in the Peace Corps or in local non-profits? Why not just reinstate
the draft? For millennia cultures have used the impulsiveness and lack of forethought of young
men to recruit new cannon-fodder leaving marriage to men who were older, wiser, richer, better
established, men who would probably make better spouses and fathers anyway.
Rauch does give another reason that marriage should be extended to homosexuals that is quite a
bit more compelling, and one that better fits the traditional role of marriage than the highly
romanticized version put forward by fundamentalists. He uses the notion of a help-mate, which
goes back to the days before there were even sociologists to study it. Need help herding the
goats? Get a wife and raise up some kids (all puns intended). Need help running your middle-class
household with the style and grace expected of your station in society? Marry a stylish woman
trained in the social graces. We all need help from time to time, and a domestic partner has the
added benefit of taking pressure off of the state in making sure those who need help get it.
This made sense in a monarchy in which what you actually got from those in charge was more a
matter of noblesse oblige than political clout or social engagement, but in a democracy, isn’t using
the state as a tool for the needs of the people exactly what government is for? It’s supposed to be
by the people and of the people, after all, so it can just as easily put its collective power toward
making sure the farms are productive and the larders full as it can anything else. The fact that we
have traditionally shunned this as socialism in America is a matter of custom, not design, and so
the idea that the government necessarily has a stake in encouraging one domestic formula over
another in order to create a de facto social program is specious at best.
All of this ignores a much more basic notion: we are a liberal democracy, and if we respect the
idea of liberty at all, we must approach marriage not from the position of what should be allowed
but from the position of what shouldn’t be. That is, what is so damaging to society or to
individual rights that the state has a vested interest in banning it?
That is why I suggest that, as far as the state is concerned, marriage is the establishment of legal,
non-parental kinship and nothing more.
I realize, of course, that in practice marriage is much, much more: an expression of love, a bond
between individual and community, a sacrament. But in this system we practice liberty first and
democracy second, as the Bill of Rights implies, and so the state should have a pretty darn good
reason for interfering with such basic liberties as who you decide to express that love and faith
with. From a purely civil libertarian perspective, gay marriage is just fine: it creates a legal kinship
arrangement that can then be used to determine matters of property, parental responsibility,
visitation rights, insurance coverage, adoptions, taxation, inheritance, and the like: all things that
the courts might have to intervene to determine and therefore areas in which the state has an
interest and role. In all other aspects, provided the parties are of the age of majority (though some
state laws allow marriage much younger than that, the legal aspect would lead me to think the age
of majority makes more sense), and no coercion or harm to the individual’s rights are involved,
it’s not the state’s business who you marry. As Kansas’s own (anti-gay) marriage amendment
states, marriage is a “civil contract,” and as far as the state is concerned, that is all it should be.
In fact, allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would be a positive boon for courts, insurers,
businesses, hospitals and employers who might otherwise not know how they should approach the
issues normally associated with marriage when they deal with same-sex partners. And it would
give the wedding industry between two and ten percent more income. What is not to like about
that?
Naysayers and conservatives will contest that such an approach would leave the U.S. open to
incest and polygamy and people marrying their goats. But if we use the criteria of no coercion or
no harm, we can see how such things could easily be disallowed. Incest would harm the parties
involved psychologically, but it would also harm the rights and privileges afforded to other legal
kin. If your wife is also your daughter, she is afforded more rights and privileges than other
siblings, and imagine trying to work out the guardianship issues! Genetic damage to offspring
would also, I believe, be a matter of state interest, as would the fact that coercion would almost
always have to be a factor in those sorts of relationships.
Polygamy and polyandry, likewise, have the potential for pitting spouse against spouse in disputes
over property, child custody, guardianship, and spousal benefits. Some “pecking order” would
have to be devised, and in so doing, those at the bottom would never be legally equal: polygamy
and polyandry would necessarily involve violations of the equal protection clause. Taxation and
alimony would also be complicated to the point of being nearly impossible if these forms of
marriage were allowed.
The goats, one can safely assume, would have to be coerced and therefore are also out.
Religious arguments against gay marriage in a secular society like ours are all non-starters. If
marriage is a civil union, then individual faiths may take whatever approach they please. “The free
exercise thereof” means just that, and if the Baptists don’t want to perform marriages for lesbians
and gays and the Unitarians do, that’s just fine. Even now, the ceremony itself means nothing
legally until the paperwork is signed and filed; there would be no need to change this if the
franchise were expanded. If your particular religious sensibilities are offended, that’s not the
state’s concern. You may be upset, but you are not legally harmed in any way. You are still free
to practice and believe as you were before, and you have no legal right not to be offended. If that
were so, I would have sued to have American Idol removed from the broadcast airwaves long
ago. Your marriage is no less valid if gay and lesbian marriages are made valid too.
That most Americans are not ready for this is beside the point. This is a matter of civil liberties.
Most Americans weren’t ready for segregation to end either, but that made segregation no less
wrong. It’s high time Americans started respecting the freedoms they purport to hold so dear. It’s
high time we stopped this silliness about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage and
let everyone into the franchise, regardless of their orientation or whether we agree with it or not.