This year I am working with students as a graduate assistant to a program at my school. As part of the program each year the students visit a different country. This year we are going to Italy and I am accompanying the students, all expenses paid. The policy has always been that a staff member can bring a spouse on the trip for a small fee enabling couples to visit places at a price much smaller than if traveling alone.
A few years ago the rule was changed to “significant other” because the original policy unfairly excluded cohabitating domestic partners be they gay or straight. Two years ago, a woman brought her friend as her significant other. This was far removed from the original intent of the policy but whose business is it how deep your relationship runs and what objective standard can really be applied to a term as vague as ‘significant.’ This year a lady wants to bring her mother because she’s never seen Italy and they’re very close. Jokes were made last meeting that I then might bring my cat. She is significant to me.
The microcosm of a simple university policy changing in time mirrors one of the most compelling arguments against same-sex marriage. While most opponents to same-sex marriage rely on specific religious teachings that can’t be applied fairly in a pluralistic, civil society, there are some reasoned objections to gay marriage dealing with the progression of law.
The ‘progression of law’ is often condemned as a slippery slope device that should be dismissed in rational discourse. But law is never static. Judicial precedents follow previous judicial precedents gradually reshaping review. Legislation is never the final word on anything; just the reference point for the next piece of legislation. While every outcome of a particular change in policy can never be anticipated, it is smart and necessary to think what effects an act might have beyond its original intent. For these reasons it is important to think hard about marriage equality and future steps in social progress.
I favor same-sex marriage. Like my example with the program above I think excluding same sex couples from the rights, responsibilities, and privileges that a legal union provides is unfair. I do not agree with the linguistic manipulation that claims this is a change in the definition of marriage or that marriage has remained constant through the ages. Marriage is a social construct perpetually in flux. It is always amusing to me that defenders of so-called traditional marriage pretend women still have dowries but lack property rights. There’s nothing wrong with changing something that every couple decades undergoes some update in meaning. My concern lies in where, if anywhere, these changes stop.
Opponents to gay marriage argue that once the requirement of one man and one woman is removed, nothing prevents groups from marrying, or family members, or a man marrying his dog. These arguments are easily, and often rightly, brushed aside as fear mongering used to distract from the real issue of discrimination in marriage laws. But, the progression of law should be considered and supporters of gay marriage have thus far proffered little counter argument other than the flimsy slippery slope dismissal.
One could say that incestuous marriage can still be prevented because reproduction among relatives produces monogenous disorders from chromosomal redundancy. There is also a power differential between parent and child that calls all consent into question. Similarly an animal cannot consent to sex, much less a lifelong commitment, so the law is under no obligation to recognize a bestial union. In contract law, there are certain contracts for which the terms necessitate a maximum of two parties. Marriage certainly counts as one of those contracts. But this alone does not prevent polygamous marriages because a husband can be considered party one while his wives constitute party two.
If this sounds ridiculous, consider The Netherlands where, just four years after legalizing same sex marriage, the country’s first triplicate union was recognized in September. Victor de Bruijn married both Bianca and Mirjam in the country’s first three-person civil union. Strictly by the numbers, gay marriage is a done deal in this country and its inception is now a question of when not if. Using deductive reasoning, is polygamy as much a foregone conclusion?
While no specific moral teaching can ever fairly be legislated, the law can never fully divorce itself from precepts of morality. And any legal act requires some arbitrary limit in order to be knowable and enforceable. If gay marriage is too controversial, consider a highway speed limit. No one would say 65mph is a direct religious teaching or someone’s moral viewpoint being imposed on society at large. But, the concept of a speed limit is connected to moral traditions such as the prevention of unintentional harm to others or self. The limit at 65 is also arbitrary and sometimes unfair. My aggression might preclude me from safe driving at 10mph while there are plenty of people that could travel at 85mph and never pose a threat to anyone. In order to protect though, the law must be crafted in the aggregate and enforce a universal principle rooted in some form of morality - arbitrary to a degree.
I agree with “pro-family” arguments that the family unit is an essential building block to society and serves many valuable purposes that should be encouraged by the state. I disagree with their assertion that same-sex partnerships can’t perform the same functions or provide the same stability. However, I share their concern in where to draw that arbitrary line on progress. If the Supreme Court were to recognize gay marriage under the equal protection clause of the Constitution it would set a convenient precedent for those seeking recognition of other arrangements.
It’s easy to see the history of marriage changing from culture to culture, century to century, and welcome the next step. Far more difficult is the task of predicting what’s around the corner. If gay marriage is the latest change in a succession of how humans relate to one another then any large minded person should be comfortable with the process. And yet, I am not. I support gay marriage but not necessarily what lies beyond. Is this fear of the unknown? …arbitrary moralizing? …the impaired vision of time specific prejudice? Like anyone else I am limited by my perception. This leaves everyone, from the most backward reactionary to the freest of thinkers in the same boat - pulled along in the mysterious current of social evolution, one law at a time.
Comments