In Consideration of Marriage, Part Two

In part one of this essay, I made some assumptions about government’s interest in marriage. Although Brother Dave is the superior sociologist, I have drawn conclusions — based on unscientific observation - about why most societies favor monogamy, rather than bigamy or polygamy. The latest data I am familiar with suggests that "serial monogamy" is the dominant form in most "Western" societies.

You may recall that my argument centered on the notion that, so far as the government is concerned, a marriage is a unique sort of contract. For the sake of this essay, we will assume that marriage is limited to two people at a time — due primarily to social norms, rather than any compelling governmental need.

I want to emphasize that I have avoided making an argument on the basis of "legislating morality". Often when one is arguing these hot-button issues, one often says we cannot (or should) "legislate morality". Well, as the Southerners say, that’s a dog that just won’t hunt. Most laws are founded on a moral system. It may be an extension of the Ten Commandments, or practical applications of the Golden Rule, but I can think of few laws that can not be traced to some moral basis. Most arguments actually derive from philosophical questions — the beginning of life, who determines the relative value of a life, and so on.

So, when we consider the question of marriage — and remove Judeo-Christian morality from the discussion as much as possible — the philosophical question becomes how we chose to define marriage. The state, as such, has little interest in why people get married. However, sociological trends do suggest that people who have formed this sort of union tend to be responsible citizens and tend to support a robust economy. These reasons alone would be sufficient cause for the state to support a codified civic union.

Then what interest does the state have in the gender of the two people entering into a civic union? I can think of only two reasons why the state would limit unions to persons of opposite genders: social norms, and progeny.

I have discussed my perception of social norms at length in the first part of this essay, but will return momentarily to make this point: I have been told that homosexuals who wish to enter into committed relationships are approximately 8% of the population. Since heterosexuality has been the dominant mode practically since the fall of Rome, it has been perceived as the norm. Therefore, I suspect calls to legally limit marriage to heterosexual couples are primarily founded on fear of anything outside of the norm. In this sense, homosexuality has been treated as the new "communism", since many of the arguments seem to center on gays "recruiting" others to their way of life.

Since modern psychological theory has yet to substantiate one person "making" another person gay, this fear is patently irrational. Yet, I am aware that logic rarely persuades those possessed by such an irrational fear. However, in ideal terms, the state does not exist to respond to irrational fears, the state exists to promote the common welfare of the members of that state.

But the state is not going to survive beyond one generation without progeny. So, for a state beginning from "ground zero", as it were, there might be good reason to compel or encourage unions which are likely to produce progeny. Given the current state of science and biology, such unions are limited to people of opposite genders.

As an aside, this argument mirrors traditional Roman Catholic teaching, that marriage exists to create progeny. Again, this traditional teaching is of no concern to the state. The state may, however, agree with that teaching for pragmatic reasons of its own.

When we consider the current status of the world population, and of the precarious ratio between resources and population, there seems to be little need to insure continued progeny for the state’s survival. I do not propose to argue in favor of recognized homosexual committed relationships in order to decrease the world’s population. But given the fact that the United States (along with most of the world) has a robust population, there is no need to require people of opposite genders to form civil unions in order to insure the potential for the perpetuation of the species (and the state).

Note I say "potential", for not all heterosexual couples are capable of siring children. There may heterosexual couples who actively choose not to have children, for whatever reasons. Outside of a doomsday scenario, there is no pragmatic reason for the state to compel couples to have children. Since there is no need to compel a couple to produce children, the state has no intrinsic interest in why a couple chooses to make a mutual commitment.

This being the case, there seems to be no sound reason for the state to limit civil unions to heterosexual couples — beyond preserving a social norm which serves no practical purpose. This is not, as it were, "legislating morality"; it is rather, imposing a philosophical belief on all members of a society. The imposition of such a philosophical belief would seem to blur the distinction between church and state — a distinction which American society has traditionally striven to maintain, to varying degrees. Furthermore, the imposition of this belief on all members of the society simply because it is the norm for 92% of the population seems like a "tyranny of the majority" — that great fear which Thomas Jefferson once expressed.

If the state has an interest in this issue, I suggest it would be in educating the majority. The best counter-agent to fear is information. With this information, the majority may come to accept committed homosexual couples as being no more aberrant than childless heterosexual couples.