Is Marriage About Equality?

What you are about to read is an effort to boil down the marriage equality argument to nothing but pure logic – those things that no person can argue the validity of.

Many of us in the United States like to believe we argue well, but then fail to see that much of our argument is built upon a foundation of items that are at best inconclusive. These are what I call our “blinders.” Because we argue from this position, the argument continues to roil with one side stating their inconclusive beliefs while the other counters with their inconclusive beliefs. Factually, this process is inefficient and is not focused on solving anyone’s problem in a reasonable amount of time.

So with the issue of marriage equality, where do we start? We can’t go to religion because there are variances in what each religion says about the relationships we have. This means that this argument is inconclusive whether you, the reader, like it or not. Not everyone agrees with your religion. Sorry.

Do we argue about the history of marriage? We could, but again we tread on the unsteady soil of inconclusiveness. Polygamy is acceptable in some circles while divorce is forbidden by others. Countless examples of history exist, all tainted by the view of the writer. The very same event can be documented ten different ways, yet it was the exact same event witnessed by each writer. Again we find we are in inconclusive territory.

Do we argue about fairness? I don’t believe we should. Fair is again a word that can be translated a myriad of ways. Just ask anyone who is African-American that lived in the Southern area of the US 50 to 70 years ago. You would have gotten several different opinions on what is “fair” several years ago, many times based solely on the color of someone’s skin. No, fairness is not a good approach either.

What about arguing that the future of our society depends on maintaining certain structures exactly as they are today? No. Again this is a false argument. One only need look at the fact that the very same argument has been used over and over again to scare people into believing the future of our society depends on one structure. Bah! I say. Society is malleable and ever-changing. Pretending that it will not or should not change is Pollyannaish and is based out of the fear people feel when change is on the horizon.

‘Women aren’t smart enough to vote.’ ‘Women are not good at science’ ‘Women are too emotional to run a company well.’ ‘A black person’s vote should not be considered equal to that of a white person’s.’ ‘If we give blacks equal citizenship, our government and society will be on a down-hill spiral to dysfunction!’ ‘Marrying between races is misogyny and is a sin against God and mankind.’ All of these statements are paraphrases of statements made in defense of positions that were at their core completely wrong. Rather than argue on the basis of whether the treatment of a given subpopulation was unequal, many grasp at arguments that pull our attentions away from this very question.

Now that most of you reading this understand why such arguments don’t serve our population well, I’ll move on to discussing equity in how our government treats their constituents.

According to the US Government and the IRS, marriage is “only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife.” (Publication 17 (2006), Your Federal Income Tax ) Notice that this specifically says “man and woman.” Just by looking at this statement, one can tell the definition is exclusive. This definition excludes any other arrangement of humans or any other arrangement of a human and another entity.

An argument of someone marrying another entity besides another human is rediculous. Why, you ask? It is rediculous because the “other entity” doesn’t have the ability to choose their fate. Other entities are subservient to human-kind. Those who are Christian would say that this is the design that God intended. We are stewards of all things on the earth, but we are not here to lord-over all other entities, whether they be animate or inanimate. Because entering into a partnership with a computer changes the relationship from owner and tool to something that is usually understood to give both parties equivalent input into the partnership, you have changed the definition of a partnership. A computer, as of today, cannot provide input into a relationship. A computer is not capable of self-determination. Therefore a computer and a man or woman should not be allowed to form a partnership. The same could be said of members of the animal kingdom and of children or adolescents. None of these entities have the capability to understand the true impact of a partnership decision and consequently should not be allowed to declare a partnership nor should they be forced into a partnership by another party.

But what about the man and woman thing? Why is this exclusive or unequal? It is exclusive because it denies a segment of the adult population the rights and privileges bestowed upon another segment of the population and it is in many ways fiscally damaging for those that are denied the privilege.

There are more than 1,000 privileges that our government extends to married couples the moment they are wed. These benefits include items like being able to join a veteran’s group to the right to file your taxes jointly. These benefits allow parental assumption by a step-parent, the right to death benefits, the right to insurance for a partner without having to declare the benefit as an increase to their income. There are so many benefits, that it would be foolish to try to list them all here. Suffice it to say, people who are in a “non-traditional” relationship or are a part of a “non-traditional” household are left without these benefits. It is not possible to argue that this situation is a situation based upon equivalency.

Doesn’t the government recognize marriage to build a strong populace? Aren’t these benefits there to encourage the building of strong partnerships in our society? Don’t these benefits encourage parents to stay together to raise their children? Well, yes. In some ways this view could be true. But on the flip-side of this question, doesn’t the building of most adult partnerships benefit our society? And when these partnerships don’t benefit society, are they not usually prosecuted by our society (Enron for instance)? Should the only time a child is benefited by governmental rules be when that child is in a man/woman centric household? Is the only reason people get married procreation? Are all married couples a boon to society or to their children?

You see? This is why the argument cannot be made on such emotional and non-factual structures. Because there is always an emotional counter-argument to every argument someone provides on the basis of religion, belief, fairness, history and interpretation, deciding governmental action on these bases is not what we should be doing.

Equivalency can be proven. If one partnership structure of two adults gets one benefit, then the other partnership structure of two people get the same benefits. If one partnership structure of two adults and three children get a benefit then another partnership structure of two adults and three children get the same. This is equivalency. But when one group is given greater benefits while at the same time harming the remaining constituency because of the lack of said benefit, it is obvious that equivalency doesn’t exist. Sadly, this is where we are today.


Copyright JGR 2007, All rights reserved.