A Timid Observer

Few issues today are as divisive as the issue of gay marriage.  It arouses intense passions on both sides of the debate that make it seem doomed to never actually getting anywhere.  One side claims that homosexual marriage will threaten the institution of marriage; the other side claims that this is not the case.  But what if there was a solution that could change the debate in a way that makes progress actually possible?  I propose accomplishing this goal by dropping the term “marriage” from the legal side of the issue completely and substituting “civil union” in its place.

My argument is as follows:  Either the government should define the socio-economic union of two adult persons as a marriage or as a civil union.  Family and community life in our society is based on the idea of two adult persons at the head of a household functioning as a single socio-economic unit (I will address the issue of single-parent households later).  “Marriage” has been defined by those who support so-called “traditional marriage values” as the socio-economic union of one adult male and one adult female.  However, the definition of “marriage” is inconsistent in the historical record and cross-culturally.  For example, until the modern era, marriages among royal families and imperial courts often took place for political reasons.  In ancient times, kings could have thousands of wives, most of them are “gifts” to the king from other kings to solidify political alliances.  In traditional Islam, a Muslim can have up to four wives, provided he can love and care for them all equally.  If the definition of marriage is a historically and cross-culturally inconsistent, then marriage has multiple, competing definitions.

If marriage has multiple, competing definitions, then it is unwise for the government to use marriage to define the socio-economic union between two adult persons.  A consequence of using marriage as a way of defining the socio-economic union between two adult persons is that it allows for one group in society to impose its own definition of marriage upon the rest of society, resulting in discrimination and suppression of minority rights.  We want to avoid these consequences to maximize the overall public good by allowing more adult persons to form socio-economic unions.  This has implications for tax policy, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and end-of-life considerations.  Therefore, the government should not use the word “marriage” when referring to the socio-economic union of two adult persons.

On the other hand, a civil union is defined as the socio-economic union of two adult persons that is recognized by the government, irrespective of the gender of either adult in the union.  Therefore, since marriage is an insufficient way of defining the socio-economic union between two adult persons, the socio-economic union between two adult persons should only be referred to as civil unions by the government.

My argument follows the ethical theory of consequentialism.  It is a hedonistic argument since it is designed to maximize the pleasure of two groups: those who want “marriage equality” and those who want to protect “traditional marriage” since the defining of “marriage” has been effectively taken out of government hands.  Heterosexual and homosexual socio-economic unions will be viewed the same by the government and under the law, and the issue of whether the union is considered a marriage or not is made the decision of the two adult persons who make up the union and, by extension, whatever religious institution performs marriage rites.  They will still have the ability to accept or reject any union of two persons if their definition of marriage is not consistent with that of the particular church.

The argument I present is also value pluralistic.  First, it aligns with the value that all persons are created equally and should not be denied any rights based on sexual orientation, putting it in line with our democratic values.  Second, it maximizes the ability of society to organize itself by breaking a barrier that has kept group of two adult persons from becoming a socio-economic unit, be it because of sexual orientation, lack of a romantic relationship, etc.  It accommodates those who believe that homosexual couples should be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples should they decide to form a single socio-economic unit (a household, if you will).

Conversely, those who believe that traditional marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage have yet to present a credible case for why they believe so.  I am not convinced by their claim that homosexual marriage will make heterosexual marriages any less meaningful, nor am I swayed by their argument that same-sex couples are worse at rearing children than heterosexual couples.  Also, since the United States grants both freedom of and freedom from religion, those who argue that homosexual marriage threatens traditional marriage have no right to impose their religious views upon the rest of society.  Whether a socio-economic union of two adult persons will constitute a marriage or not will be irrelevant in the eyes of the government and the law.  Should a particular religious institution decide to deny the rite of marriage to a homosexual (or any) couple, they will remain free to do so.  In addition, my argument is maximizing because it accomplishes the goals of both sides of the debate for the aforementioned reasons. I am aware that those who argue against civil unions will claim that this is not maximizing because they are, in their perspective, being forced to compromise their own value that homosexual marriage is immoral.  I respond that their compromising actually IS maximizing because it appeals to the value that government should be trying to maximize: everyone is equal in society and before the law and no one should be denied rights because of who they are.

Lastly, my argument is agent-neutral.  Since I am a heterosexual, I do not have a tangible interest in the extending of civil rights to homosexuals.  However, I do believe it to be morally wrong to deny legal and socio-economic benefits to people based on their sexual orientation, something that they are not in control of.  To do so would amount to discrimination based on whether they find the opposite gender or same gender sexually attractive.  In my mind, this is no different from discriminating based on skin color, religion, ethnicity or worldview.  As long as the union is between two adult persons, they should all be granted the same legal rights through a civil union, not a marriage.

A devil’s advocate would object to my using of two adult persons as making up a socio-economic unit.  They will ask, “but why not a person and a dog?” or “why not legalize incest?”  Responding to the case of the person and the dog, an adult person is aware of the consequences of their actions and what they are doing, whereas the dog would not be aware that he or she is married to the person.  In addition, society as a whole has decided that bestiality is immoral.  The latter counter argument also applies to the incest case: as a society we have decided that incest is immoral, and this does not even necessarily need to account for the potential disastrous genetic mutations that can result from offspring produced in an incestuous relationship.  Furthermore, both of these claims commit the slippery-slope fallacy and begs the question.  Instead of asking “Why not bestiality/incest?”, we should ask “Why bestiality/incest?” and finally, “How exactly would  allowing homosexual couples to form civil unions lead to those results?”

One objection that could be raised to my argument based on my consequentialist methodology is that it requires very significant sacrifices on both sides of the debate.  On the pro-gay marriage side, it forces them to concede that they will not be granted “marriage” as a right, but instead the legal and economic protections that being married currently provides.  This criticism does have some merits, but in response, I contend that equal rights and protection under the law are much more important roles for government than determining whether two adult persons are considered “married” or not.

On the opposing side, it is not hard to imagine the Catholic Church fighting tooth and nail to keep the term “marriage” as the term recognized and used by the government.  I respond to this by reminding the critic of the First Amendment to the American Constitution: “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Since, according to my argument, marriage will cease to be a legal term it will be left to the realm of religion to figure out what marriage means so that religious marriage rites can be carried out.  Since marriage will be considered a religious term and the American government does not respect the establishment of religion, this criticism eventually becomes baseless.

Another obvious possible objection to my argument would be to question my premise: “’Marriage’ has been defined by those who support so-called “traditional marriage values” as the socio-economic union of one adult male and one adult female.”  One objection would be that I ignore the emotional and romantic aspects of said relationships.  I respond to my critics by dismissing this criticism as irrelevant, because my argument refers strictly to the relationship between the socio-economic union of two adult persons and the government, or whatever legal actions or bodies are involved therein.  Marriages are complicated institutions that have many facets: emotional, social, economic, religious etc.  However, the only ones I am concerning myself with here are those that are relevant to government, that is, the socio-economic aspects. This criticism fails in that it does not address the aspects relating to government.  Whether or not the two adult persons are romantically involved or not becomes irrelevant in this case.

Lastly, the issue of single-parent households functioning as socio-economic units needs to be addressed.  I argued that family and community life in western society is based on the idea of two adult persons at the head of a household functioning as a single socio-economic unit.  In pre-modern times when things like disease were more widespread and deadly, single-parent households tended to result from the death of one of the parents.  Today, the number of single-parents households is increasing and this can potentially challenge my aforementioned premise.  According to the US Census Bureau, in 2006, 12.9 million households were single-parent households.  Should this trend continue, I acknowledge that the premise in question may need to be revised to reflect this demographic shift.  Until then, the fact that the majority of households are indeed two-parent households makes this objection irrelevant at this time, but potentially could become relevant in the future.

Having the government recognize only civil unions in lieu of marriage is not only the commonsense thing to do, it is also the morally correct decision.

In Logical form, my argument proceeds as follows:

1. Either the government should define the socio-economic union of two adults as a marriage or a civil union (Either P or Q)

2. Family and community life in western society is based on the idea of two adult persons at the head of a household acting as a single socio-economic unit (R)

3. Marriage is defined today as the socio-economic union of one adult male and one adult female (P is S)

4. Marriage is a historically inconsistent term (S is T)

5. Marriage has multiple competing definitions (U)

6. If marriage has multiple, competing definitions, it is unwise for the government to use marriage to define the socio-economic union between two adult persons (If U then ~P)

7. Therefore, the government should not use the word “marriage” when referring to the partnership of two adult persons (~P) (3, 5, 6)

8. A civil union is defined as the socio-economic union of two adult persons that is recognized by the government (W is Q)

9. Therefore, “civil union” should be used to define the socio-economic institution that two adult persons create (Q) (1, 6,