The UWIRE Forum


My evolving position on gay marriage
September 2, 2009, 11:29 am
Filed under: Uncategorized
Matt Cavedon

Matt Cavedon

Generally, I hate the political cliché, “evolving position.”

As somebody who has spent the past two months going from full-fledged support of gay marriage, to dismay at the law’s sanctioning of permissiveness in divorce, to being deeply skeptical of the way the nature of marriage is framed politically, though, I’m starting to think the term may be more legitimate than I ever would have given it credit for.

As a native of Connecticut going to school in Massachusetts with gay relatives and friends, I had supported gay marriage for as long as I could remember. Being able to choose who you love, after all, seemed like a right, and who was the state to say what relationships it would and would not sanction? If straights are getting tax breaks and special legal privileges, then gosh darn it, gays deserve them under the equal protection of the laws.

Then, I started thinking about it in terms of what is natural. Sex and marriage have a dual purpose: the bonding of two people in a fully giving relationship, and the creation of new life. The reason why culture values monogamy, and why evolution points us toward it, is that committed, stable parents give kids a good atmosphere to grow up in.

Sex, child-rearing, and monogamy are intertwined quite naturally in the institution of marriage. Granted, we love to do all kinds of unnatural things, like expect that sex can happen for the sake of pleasure without consequences, and that love is more about biological pleasure than it is about what nature says it is about.

We give married couples tax benefits and legal protections because they are the primary raisers of children, and it is in the best interests of society for them to stay together. Seen through this lens, giving tax breaks and legal recognition to same-sex couples is like giving a money bonus for promising not to have sex with anyone but each other. It’s like a “congratulations on your love; here’s a tax break!” promotion.

We have equality of the law for people, not the decisions they make and lifestyles they choose. No one says that we are denying nudists equal rights by restricting their lifestyles to private places (no pun intended).

The only problem with taking this logic to its conclusions is that we have been giving these breaks to 30 million American couples that are married without children every year, and many gay couples want to get married so that they can adopt kids. Granted, I have serious issues with the culture of birth control and sex-for-pleasure’s sake within marriage, but I’m realistic enough to know that there is no way that we are going to keep justifying gifts to non-procreating straight couples without giving the same rights to same-sex couples, especially those who want to raise kids. Which is, after all, what we have traditionally expected marriage to do, and why we give it special benefits.

So, where does that leave an increasingly conservative young man like me? In an ideal world, let’s just scrap the income tax and let people designate who is their primary “other” in life. Without the income tax sucking away a third of the average American’s income, tax credits will become a thing of the past for both straight and gay couples, meaning no more unequal treatment, even with a new tax system like a national sales tax.

As for hospital visits, alimony arrangements, child-rearing agreements, pension and health benefits, and the whole slew of other issues, letting folks define who they want to share legal relationships with makes sense. You want to put grandma down on your health insurance so that she is well-cared for? That’s more conservative than cranking up public health insurance funding. You want your brother to be able to make end-of-life decisions should anything, God forbid, happen to you? Sounds traditional enough to me. Want your roommate to have to go to court to settle damage to common property? Uh… okay. Want your lesbian lover to be able to adopt your kids with you? The law won’t stop you.

Even this arrangement wouldn’t necessarily work out as intended, though: who’s to say that it wouldn’t simply discourage people from marrying at all, so that their chosen people could keep getting benefits, or get married but keep treating the best friend in a more legally serious way than the spouse? Alternatively, such arrangements could mean that, as in more traditional cultures of the world, Americans look beyond the nuclear family and start treating extended relatives like family again, too.

But that’s just idle speculation for the time being. In our less perfect world where the tax code gives us carrots for living the moral life John Edwards and Larry Craig call us to (they are, after all, the ones writing our federal marriage laws), and where legal marriage gets all kinds of legal protections not given to siblings, friends, grandparents, and whoever else you want it to, I’ll lean against the state subsidizing even the most committed of sexual relationships for their own sake, and against the state putting unnatural relationships on an equal footing with the most evolutionarily necessary of all of them.

Unless, of course, you can get me to evolve my position little more…

Matt Cavedon is a student at Harvard University.

Advertisements

2 Comments so far
Leave a comment

You have a whole bunch of assumptions and faulty premises other people mention on your Facebook post of this (your admitted aversion to sex for pleasure, relationships being defined by whether or not they produce children, your blind eye to tax breaks for married childless couples, etc.) but I have one that really stood out to me:

“…I started thinking about it in terms of what is natural. Sex and marriage have a dual purpose: the bonding of two people in a fully giving relationship, and the creation of new life. The reason why culture values monogamy, and why evolution points us toward it, is that committed, stable parents give kids a good atmosphere to grow up in.”

This is complete bullpuckey.

Human cultures traditionally do NOT value monogamy, historically, nor has the “evolution” of our relationships (with the result being the institution of marriage) had to do with the best way to raise kids.

For most of human existence marriage and monogamy were not the “norm”, though they occurred occasionally. Most cultures have multiple partners going for at least one sex, if not both. Polygamy was far more common. Marriage was created strictly as a means to distribute and combine property and control inheritance…capitalism/feudalism, not romance. It was about using your children (and other leftover family members…sisters, nephews, even widowed mothers) to LITERALLY forge political alliances with other families. Our ideas of marriage involving romance and love and a spiritual bond (to the point of there being “The One”) are a few hundred years old, at best…possibly younger, since our parents and grandparents didn’t seem to be quite as hyper-romantic about it as we are.

Marriage is not the romance you claim it is.

Marriage no doubt has some deep spiritual meaning and significance for you, as it has come to for most people today.

But trying to paint it as a timeless tradition of pure love, the glorious evolution to the pinnacle of human relationships is dishonest, an attempt (deliberate or not) to personalize something that is and has for decades if not centuries been PURELY* a function of the state, both theocracy and democracy.

* A little bit of an exaggeration here, but seriously: historically, marriages of love were freaks, even dangerous because the emotional tie was to the spouse and not your own kin!

And it seems like the reason is purely to deny the political, formal, and social equality that gay marriage would bring to same-sex couples. If it’s personal rather than political then you can pull the rug out from under gays’ inequality claims and pretend like they’re just those prissy liberals taking everything too personally, instead of a group with a serious and obvious (even you can’t deny it’s impact) civil rights violation.

But marriage IS political, and historically has been nothing BUT political. All these claims that it’s personal and not the state’s business that come out now are a thinly veiled excuses to pretend to grant gays equal rights without actually giving up any of our heterosexual privileges.

Sorry, but everything you’ve written here seems like an excuse.

Comment by Ruthie

I never said marriage was some deep, whirlwind ocean of passionate love. I said that it is rooted in biology and the evolutionary need for reproduction to happen in a monogamous setting. Our ideals reflect what we know intuitively to be true, and our ideal of committed, lifelong, exclusive relationships reflects an evolutionary impulse. Marriage is a solid reflection of human nature.

So yes, marriage has deep meaning for me. So do churches, art, and respect. In a country with churches turned into apartments, religious icons sold to the highest bidder, and hate speech is legal, religious people learn that there is a proper role for the state. Protecting our sentimentalities does not fall within that role. I am not looking for excuses to deny equal rights to my friends. I am looking for people to ask why we have relativized activity to the point where giving people tax breaks for sexual unions has become an expected “right.”

Comment by Matt




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: