Culture War - the Marriage Debate

It is undeniable that a national dialogue (I hate that word so much) is taking place concerning the definition of marriage. Of course, I shouldn't really call it a dialogue, because there isn't really much dialogue going on. There is a lot of monologuing. There is a lot of yelling. There is a lot of spending (like $70+ million trying to pass / defeat proposition 8 in California).


Why is this? Why are we committing such tremendous resources on both sides of this issue? Those on the left may say that they are fighting for a homosexuals right to marry the person they love. Those on the right may say they are fighting to protect the traditional definition of marriage. They are both lying.


There are thousands of churches around the country that would be happy to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple. There are no protests outside these churches (at least not that make the news). Homosexuals are not blocked from the marriage ceremony, and those that are supposedly opposing "same-sex marriage" make no effort to try to stop them. The battle is not over the culture. There are sub-cultures on both sides of this divisive issue that co-exist in peace. While there are always those that would wish to blot all other sub-cultures from the face of the earth, the reality is that we get along fairly well.


If not for the government.


The battle is not so much over the culture as it is over control of the state's power apparatus. Changing the state's position on this issue will have major repercussions throughout the culture.

There are two valid claims in this debate. There are those that want a same-sex relationship to have the same recognition, rights, responsibilities, and benefits as a traditional relationship. There argument is that they are forced to support an legal institution that they have no access to. Then there are those that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage because of the potential impact that will have on the rest of the governments involvement in culture. For instance, a Catholic charity operating in New England was forced to close its doors because they refused to offer their adoption services to same-sex partners. Legal recognition of marriage is viewed by many to be a stepping stone towards enacting and enforcing anti-discrimination laws that would prevent a massive portion of our society from living and acting according to their values and religious beliefs.

The problem here is that since the government has taken it upon itself to provide countless benefits and services, and through regulation is constantly involved in social engineering, the idea of protecting "Civil Rights" has become a zero-sum equation that usually involves giving one person a "right" to some service or benefit, by taking away another person's right to their property. We no longer consider rights something that need to be protected; rather, we use the term to also refer to various privileges that we believe are important. It is one thing to protect a man's cupboard from being emptied in a robbery, it is another thing entirely to fill his cupboard by robbing someone else's.

So, if we take a classic view of our civil rights, what can we conclude regarding same-sex marriage? Regarding the protections that marriage offers, I see no reason why any person, whether they desire to enter into a same-sex marriage or a traditional marriage, should be denied the legal protections that a contract allows. If two people want to establish co-ownership of their property, they should be free to do so. If two people want to establish co-guardianship over any children, be they biological or adopted, they should be free to do so. If two people want to will their possessions to the other and establish one another as executors of their estates with power of attorney and the power to make decisions in the case of one of the people being put on life-support, then they should be free to do that. I see no reason why this contract should have a different name for homosexuals than it does for heterosexuals. However, when it comes to benefits, the government really has no right to establish benefits for those that are married, be they heterosexual or homosexual, to be paid for by those that are not. The government also has no right to force businesses, churches, or private organizations to treat married or unmarried people a certain way, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. That means that no business or health insurance provider should be forced to offer benefits to people based entirely on their relationship, legal or otherwise, to the customer/employee. If you want to buy health insurance for a spouse, a child, a sibling, a friend, or a stranger, you should be entitled to do so, but you should not be entitled to receive some kind of discount.

Once again, we see that the problem is not that the culture is at war. The problem is that the government is actively involved in robbing and oppressing us, and that we are all pitted one against the other to determine who is the one that is robbed and who is the one that receives the spoils, who is the one that is oppressed and who is the oppressor. We are all faced with a decision: either we allow ourselves to be oppressed, or we fight to become an oppressor. Unfortunately, it seems that the government knows no other way.