I enjoyed reading Cecil’s 1/28/2000 column regarding same-sex marriage (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000128.html). As usual, his writing was refreshingly intelligent and balanced… until I reached the last paragraph. He mentions a “tricky issue” that “gay marriage presents,” essentially what would happen if two “wiseacre straight roommates” (he did not specify their gender(s)) tried to abuse the system. One assumes that he meant straight roommates of the same gender because of the “GAY SEX” reference. Could the paragraph not be re-written as follows, changing the word “gay” to “straight”?
“Straight marriage presents a host of tricky issues. Why should marriage be restricted to conjugal relationships? Suppose a couple of wiseacre [gay or straight] roommates [of opposite sexes] waltz into city hall demanding a marriage license. We live together and share expenses, they argue. You’re telling us we can’t get a marriage license because we don’t have STRAIGHT SEX?”
Was Cecil justified in implying this situation was an inherent “tricky issue” that “gay marriage presents?” Why is it any different than a male and a female of any sexual orientation doing the same thing under existing laws? Should he explain to the Teeming Millions that this shouldn’t be considered an argument against gay marriage (as he implies it could be) or am I missing something?
–Scott Foust, Salt Lake City
(edited to fix link - for the automatic URL parsing to work correctly, it’s helpful to leave a space before and after the URL)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-30-2001 at 11:30 PM]
Hmmm… Yes, I suppose you’re right. I think this probably came up in one of our infamous Message Board arguments about the subject.
Well, I think there may be some justification for the comment, although maybe less as time goes on.
I don’t think there is anything inherently different (IMHO at least) between two same sex people pretending they have a relationship that doesn’t exist, and two opposite sex people doing the same. However, I would think that traditionally there have been a higher percentage of same sex roommates who are not in a relationship than opposite sex roommates. In other words, it seems possible that opposite sex roommates are more likely to actually be in a relationship than same sex roommates.
If that’s the case, then there is a higher potential in same sex couples to abuse a marriage contract than in opposite sex couples.
But although I don’t want to get into great debates territory, IMO the whole thing is silly. As far as I’m concerned, if two people want to be married, or even claim to be married, let them.
Ugly
I think that his point was that the laws currently being passed concerning things similar to gay marriage have largely taken sex out of the definition of marriage. If you try to define marriage in such a way, then roommates (of whatever gender or orientation) are apt to meet it.
This seems like one of the most common arguments against gay marriage/civil whatever—that two not-really-married people would get married by this new law.
So?
It’s long been the case that “marriages of convenience” have existed, wherein a man and a woman don’t really ever plan to get married to anyone but would like some of the benefits pertaining thereto, so they visit a JP and as far as the gov’t is concerned, they’re married. This has never been a great cause for concern before.
Perhaps more importantly, though, the very existence of this argument demonstrates just why marriage/civil-something is so important to many people in the gay community: even aside from the societal acceptance of what “marriage” means, there are a number of unrelated benefits to having a spouse:
[ul]
[li]Your spouse is your next-of-kin and gets easier access to you if you are in hospital, jail, or various other predicaments[/li][li]Tax-wise you can be considered together, which is often (not always) beneficial[/li][li]It becomes easier to do joint financial things, like getting a house loan[/li][li]Two are better than one at raising kids, and it’s easier to adopt as a “married” couple[/li][li]Health insurance usually provides for a spouse as well, making an important safety net if one spouse becomes temporarily unemployed[/li][li]Various perks and freebies that come with a job usually pertain to spouses also[/li][/ul]
The list goes on and on. If you expect at some point to meet a member of the opposite sex that you intend to “marry” in the traditional sense, then you’ll want all these benefits to go to them; otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable to want to be able to get all these benefits for someone you want to spend your life with, whether sex is a part of the relationship or not.