http://economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2459758
The case for gay marriage
Feb 26th 2004
>From The Economist print edition
It rests on equality, liberty and even society
SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights,
big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to
the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that
he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America
banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away
simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative
supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely
"Massachusetts liberal" opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet
to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and
draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be
worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing.
Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect "the most fundamental
institution of civilisation" from what he sees as "activist judges"
who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that
banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city
of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands
of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction
to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before
this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those "activist
judges", who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well
take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts
equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands
equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that
state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to
choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying
further that "the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all,
not to mandate its own moral code". That obligation could well lead the
justices to uphold the right of gays to marry.
Let them wed
That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries --
Belgium and the Netherlands -- have given full legal status to same-sex
unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others
have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of
homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed
for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for
some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The
Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years
ago ("Let them wed", January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers,
though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more
than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical
change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be
blocked precipitously.
The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and
simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a
right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no
damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that
right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American
states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious
few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was "traditional".
Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man
and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may
live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be
"married". But that is to dodge the real question -- why not? -- and to
obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at
once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special
obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital
commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be
prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other
ways, are allowed to do so?
Civil unions are not enough
The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important
social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to
marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the
symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and
commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry
would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase
the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing,
commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing,
not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent
families that have wrought social damage.
But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it
often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter
that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is,
yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to
impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly
bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would
be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for
religious ends.
The importance of marriage for society's general health and stability
also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage --
a so-called civil union -- is not enough. Vermont has created this
notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot,
however, be called a "marriage". Some European countries, by legislating
for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same
direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the
opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support
it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to
that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a
backlash -- of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.
Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society.
Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal
contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for
some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn't
everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would
threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
