I always hear American preachers and politicians talk about how same sex marriage will lead to horrific outcomes.
There are five countries who have had legalized same-sex marriage for a decade or more:
[ul]
[li]The Netherlands[/li][li]Belgium[/li][li]Canada[/li][li]Spain[/li][li]South Africa[/ul]This is a pretty good cross-section of the globe with three European countries, one from North America and one from Africa.[/li]
I know correlation does not equal causation, but how are those places doing? Have they dealt with civil war? Untold abortions? Instigated legal polygamy? More gay suicides? More out of wedlock births? Caused beastiality? Led to mass killings and chaos? Has gay marriage literally caused the destruction of any of those countries?
In short, how are those places doing? If after a decade or more of gay marriage being the law of the land, those places just have to be toast by now, right?
Marriage is a private religious matter, so I don’t see why the State would have any interest in two parties making a religious commitment to one another.
They haven’t fallen into the ocean, nor been taken over by tyrants, nor has the Catholic Church been banned there. I don’t know about South Africa, but the other four have thriving economies.
(I just Googled, and South Africa’s economy is almost exactly at the World Average, somewhat ahead of the African regional average, substantially behind the average of the world’s free economies. So…about middlin’.)
Marriage is neither private nor (inherently) religious. Sitnam has already pointed to the inaccuracy of assuming that it is religious, but it’s even more inaccurate to assume that it’s private. In fact, it’s inherently and fundamentally public. The whole point of marriage is to engage societal recognition of, and support for, a conjugal relationship which would otherwise be a purely private matter.
Plus, South Africa has introduced legal recognition of polygamous marriages. They did this a few years before recognising same-sex marriages, though, so it would be a bit of a stretch to say that it was a consequence of same-sex marriage.
Because the state has a clear interest in stable family units and rewarding the creation thereof? Because marriage is not and has not been a purely religious institution for a long time?
And I suppose we can blame the candidacy of Donald Trump on SSM.
But there’s been an economic boon in the collective wedding industries: jewelry, formal wear, catering, musicians, honeymoon travel, etc. … that one homophobic baker notwithstanding.
We’ve had (a form of)legal polygamy before we had gay marriage, so that’s a wash. But otherwise, we’re actually doing OK - no worse off than we would be without gay marriage, of that I’m sure.
Well, in Spain, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, one of the judges in our Supreme Court, has just released a book and I’ve discovered he’s married to a dude. Aaaaah. That’s about the biggest current SSM-related news from this heterosexual correspondant who’s always been lousy at the whole gossip thing.
Back when it went into effect, there were some attempts to needle PP city councilors (PP had voted against SSM, city councilors can act as marriage registrars): “oh my, you’ve officiated/attended an SSM/just got married to your same-sex partner of many years!” “yep” “but your party voted against SSM!” “yep” “but but but” “do you have a point or can I go have lunch now? I’m kind of peckish”. There were a few, a very very few, city councilors in the whole country, who called upon the “conscientious objection” clause, but there were always other councilors in the same town who were happy to do it, so no problem. Judges didn’t get that clause, because unlike councilors they didn’t have the option to not run for their jobs again.
Marriage is a contract between two parties for the purposes of governing joint property, taxes, child care and inheritance. Religion is entirely optional. The state’s interest in the marriage contract is the same as their interest in other sorts of contracts.
As a practical matter, the gender of the two parties is also irrelevant.
It has had no negative effect on Canada of any sort, as any damn fool should have been able to predict.
Of course it has had an AFFECT, in that a great many people have been able to enjoy the benefits of marriage who previously could not have, so the total utility enjoyed by Canadians has increased.