Reply #12: Yes, I am advocating redesign...

[Meldread]

Yes, I am advocating redesign for the purpose of disentangling the whole mess from the state. I agree on your final point, but let me touch on your first point then add an additional one of my own.

I would encourage you to step back a moment and think about the system you are defending. Why should the state have any say at all over who gets married, and what a relationship should look like? To give an answer in support of the state places us in the same position that our opponents currently occupy. To answer the question you almost have to start out with, "The purpose of marriage is..." To which I'd retort, "Why does the state get to define the purpose of marriage?"

Our opponents claim that the state can deny us the right to marry because the purpose of marriage is procreation. Since same sex couples can't breed, then the state can be selective in who it allows to get married. This is functionally no different than giving the poor child a grant to go to college, while denying the wealthy child the ability to apply for the grant. In the case of the grant the state is trying to promote college education, and in the case of marriage the state is trying to promote procreation.

Most (and some might argue all) of the benefits granted by marriage are privileges and not rights. As I argued previously in the case of Social Security spousal benefits, the state has the right to suddenly decide that such benefits are non-transferable. No court in the entire country would deny that the state doesn't have the right to do that. As a result such things are privileges not rights.

When we step forward to argue for gay marriage we are really putting forward two separate reasons as to why we want it. First, we want all the benefits associated with the legal contract of marriage. Second, and perhaps the most important, we seek the state to validate our relationships in the eyes of the law as being equal to heterosexual relationships.

This bothers me about our argument, and brings us back to my discussion on inalienable rights. I already believe that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships. This in my eyes is an undeniable truth. The state cannot look at a gay relationship and say that it is untrue. It can, as it currently does, refuse to acknowledge it.

However, this is the equivalent of someone trying to convince everyone the Earth is flat. Just because they want it to be flat does not change the fact that it is round. It does not even matter if they gain the power to execute anyone who claims the earth is round, it will never change the fact.

It is because of my belief that gay relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships that I support marriage equality. It has nothing to do with the fairness of the privileges granted by the state, even though I covet them as well.

This is why our opponents stand against us. They do not view our relationships as equal to their own. They fear that if the state recognizes our relationships, it will lend us an air of legitimacy which would in turn lead to social acceptance. This is bad for them as it will marginalize them from the mainstream and turn society against them.

However, it bothers me that we are turning to the state and seeking marriage as a form of validation. We do not need to be validated because we are already equal. This is where the whole separate but not equal debate plays out when it comes down to civil unions vs marriage.

From my view, the state can deny us the privileges of marriage all they want: it will not change the fact that our relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships. Nor will legalizing gay marriage suddenly awaken the public at large to this fact. Indeed, if gay marriage was to suddenly be legalized tomorrow when we all woke up, those who opposed it will still oppose it. Over time people would grow to accept us as equals, but people are already doing that without state approval. This is why our opponents are fighting a losing battle.

I know all this may seem semantical, but it really bothers me that the state has the power to determine what is and is not a valid marriage. So, while I may not support polygamy (or some other form of marriage) they find themselves in a similar plight. Just because I do not support polygamy personally, does not mean I view myself (or the state) suitable to determine how others should live their lives.

So, going back to your first point and wrapping things up, to support the state having this type of power forces each and every group which wishes to expand the definition of marriage to fight the same battle over and over. If we believe that morality should not be allowed to influence who can and cannot enter into a legal contract, then it only makes sense for us to disentangle marriage from the state.

Finally, welcome to D.U. :hi: