Cybrpnk's Rantings

In yet another piece of election-year cynicism, the social conservatives in Congress, egged on by our so-called President are pushing for Senate debate and vote on a constitutional amendment to legalize wife-beating. Oops, I mean legalize homophobia. Or was it religious discrimination? Well, they claim it's about protecting marriage, but is anyone really fooled by that? Not that they really think there is any chance that this monstrosity will pass, oh no, they just want people on the record as being against marriage. Or perhaps against God. For how else could one construe a vote against saving marriage? Bah. Fortunately, as of this writing very view senators seem enthusiastic about casting votes in favor of a constitutional amendment to extend the reach of discrimination.

Not only is this whole farce an affront to our bedrock principles of liberty and freedom, not to mention common decency, but it is also an assault on the division between church and state. We will all be hearing lots of high-toned rhetoric about the traditional nature of marriage, as well as hints that marriage is a universal concept that has always been the same in all cultures. This will surely come as news to the Mormons, who are not allowed to practice polygamy (a ban that will also be embodied in this proposed amendment). It will also come as a bit of a shock to historians who are aware that gay marriage occurred in ancient Rome. Not to mention all of the gay couples who are merely asking for equal protection under the law, as provided by the fourteenth amendment.

How did we get ourselves into this mess? It began with the concept that it would be good for the government to be encouraging people to have children. It was not a big leap from there to the realisation that children do better if they are raised in stable households. All good so far. But then the social conservatives started pushing the idea that the best arrangement for raising kids is having a male and a female adult married to each other heading up the household. From there they made the logically erroneous leap to the belief that encouraging marriage equates to providing stable conditions for raising children. There is so much wrong with this belief, that it is difficult to know where to start tearing it down.

First off, there is no research that I know of which attempts to prove that two is the optimum number of adults, nor any indication that the sex of the adults is relevant. Given the sleep-deprived zombie that so many people turn into while raising children, it seems dubious to argue that two adults could possibly be the best number. Three or four seems like a better guess. Next, given the horrendous parents so many people are, why should there be any belief that keeping the birth parents in the child's life is inherently superior? Given the choice between a lesbian couple composed of two stable, emotionally mature women, or the combination of a cocaine-addicted Wall Street trader and his anorexic, valium-popping wife, who seems likely to be the better parents?

But all of that is almost beside the point. Why jump to the conclusion that marriage is about parenting anyway? What is it that the state is really encouraging here? There are lots of couples that want to build a stable household, but don't want kids. There are other people who want kids, but prefer short-term relationships with their lovers. Or, of course, people who want kids but won't (or can't) have them on their own, and must look outside their primary relationship to make this happen (adoption, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, etc.). Not to mention the whole divorce issue. Is a child better off being raised in a stable gay household, or going through a brutal divorce during which each parent uses the child as a conduit to unleash their hatred of the opposite sex in general, and their ex-partner specifically?

The best clue to what is really going on is found in references to the 'sanctity' of marriage. To anyone interested in civil liberties that word should be a red flag. What is really going on here is a religious fringe flouting it's political power by trying to impose it's narrow-minded and bigoted ideology on all of us. How un-American is that? This same fringe believe that it is wrong to have children outside of wedlock, and that it is wrong to be gay. What a national disgrace that we could seriously consider giving those sort of people a say over how the rest of us live our lives. And where are the conservatives who are also so harshly critical of liberals telling people how to live their lives in this whole debate? Lots of them are backing their president of course. So much for integrity. Kudos to those conservatives who are taking principled stances on this, of course.

Here's a simple solution to this whole mess, which I believe that liberals, moderates, and many conservatives could happily support: let's get the state out of the marriage business. Why don't we just have one relationship recognized by the state. Call it domestic partnership, household, whatever. Legally it should be roughly equivalent to marriage today: similar tax status, inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc. This mechanism should be a way for adults to acknowledge the primacy of a relationship, and be treated by the state as a familial unit. As to marriage, leave it to the religions. If one church wants to allow gays to marry, and another doesn't, that's their right. That's what freedom of religion is about. Finally, if the state wants to assist people in raising children, then put programs in place to do so, but leave marriage out of it. There are three compelling state interests this would serve: the encouragement of people to form stable and loving households; the support of people deciding to have children; and the preservation of religious freedom.