bunnynico:

This is an interesting take on the marriage issue. There are actually several states out there (I think currently 11?) that have amended their constitutions to expressly recognize marriage between a man and a woman only. (You can check out laws on relationship recognition by state here.) Federal law contains similar language.

Just to clarify, the California Supreme Court actually raised the bar on the level of scrutiny that has traditionally been afforded to discrimination based on sexual preference to the “strict scrutiny” test, a rule that has applied to race in the past, while discrimination based on sexual preference has been accorded the lowest level of review (in gender discrimination cases, an intermediate level of review is applied, so California’s ruling basically ratcheted up the standard by two notches, from the lowest to the highest, a bold, and potentially harmful, move):

Writing for the California high court, Chief Justice Ronald M. George first found that the exclusion of gays from marriage violated their fundamental right to marry, thereby drawing strict scrutiny from the court. This meant that the state would have to produce a compelling reason to bar gays from what the court deemed “the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime.” In a crucial move, Chief Justice George rejected the state’s argument that tradition was such a reason. Allowing tradition to thus entrench itself, he said, would have allowed for laws barring interracial couples. And, as he noted, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage in 1948, almost two decades before the U.S. Supreme Court did in Loving v. Virginia.

For me, the issue has always boiled down to what marriage “means,” and being somewhat of a romantic, I have always thought, or hoped, that it was the culmination of a natural progression between two people who carried a deep and profound love for one another. But realistically, it means a lot of different things to different people: love, stability, a live-in sex partner, health insurance and other benefits, citizenship, another parent, an arranged marriage, etc. In our culture, its meaning has shifted significantly, even over the past fifty years.

I think that those of us who support same-sex marriage flinch at the accusations thrown around by its dissenters (ironically, many of whom support divorce), who suggest that recognizing such a union will destroy the “sanctity — the institution — of marriage.” Who are they to tell anyone what marriage means or should mean?

Yet, the hypocrite in me finds a little discomfort in the above proposal, along with a conflicted understanding that marriage doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, and even more, that the act of marriage itself is merely a contractual relationship between two individuals, perhaps an antiquated form of recognizing a particular relationship. Many of the relationships suggested above can be legally created (though typically not transferring health coverage).

Is the point that marriage should be a complete free-for-all? (e.g. should I be able to marry my brother, for instance, since he is moving to London through his employer and I’d like to go with him and have health benefits?) I guess I feel a little uncomfortable with the thought of this. For one, because it feels like it belittles what gays have fought so arduously for — a social recognition of their ability to love someone of the same sex, as heterosexuals do.

I have a lot of the same feelings and reservations as you on this issue.

I still have faith in marriage as “the culmination of a natural progression between two people who carried a deep and profound love for one another,” and I’m looking forward to being a husband.

I think the notion that letting same-sex couples marry would destroy anything about the institution is ridiculous. It breaks my heart, really, to have known such loving, incredible people that would have no doubt been wonderful partners and parents but, because of the time in which they were born, were denied romantic fulfillment and social acceptance.

And I don’t mean to belittle the fight for equality of same-sex relationships, love, or acceptance in any way. I absolutely recognize the ability of anyone to love someone of the same sex and wish everyone else would do the same.

For me, it comes down to this: sharing a legal status recognized by and tied up with laws that can change with 51% votes and pledging your absolute faith, love, and devotion to another human being within a meaningful cultural tradition shouldn’t have anything to do with one another.

If consenting adults love each other and no harm is being done to anyone, it’s nobody’s business to deny them the basic human right of long-term, committed love and the ability to recognize that love within any non-government institution, religious or otherwise, in which they have the right to freely participate.

The only argument I can see for harm is that done to the “institution of marriage.”¹ I suppose that the main purpose behind my idea for extreme separation is to get rid of that argument. If someone says that they believe that marriage is between a man a woman, I don’t think the state should step on that belief. Instead, it should leave that belief up to the individual without denying equal rights to all. If we decide that a certain type of legal status between two individuals is an important thing to allow for through law, everyone should have access.

As for marrying your brother: what I’m proposing would have all the same legal ties as current marriage. If you got hitched, it wouldn’t be some flippant thing, but a big fucking deal that would require divorce-like proceedings and all that goes with them to dissolve. And, naturally, a legal union wouldn’t carry the same emotional and social ramifications as marriage.

I wish we could talk about this in person. I’d sound a lot less like a cold, calculated, academic dick!