Unromantic Reasons that I Support Gay Marriage

Many of the objections to legalizing same sex marriages arise from moral fears and a personal sense of distaste, and arguments to the contrary are often exercises in obfuscation. However, it is worth examining the arguments on their own merits, in order to address the underlying motives.

The slippery slope has been posited as a danger, should people be allowed to marry those of their own sex. After all, there are people who claim to have "fallen in love" with children. People who claim to “love” their pets, in the romantic sense. If the argument in favor gay marriage is that "people do not choose who they fall in love with,” it is clear that love is not the place to draw the line.

The problem with this comparison, of course, is that legal marriage has nothing to do with love. One need not love one’s spouse, and until recently it wasn't something commonly expected. It still isn't, in plenty of cultures. It's a nice bonus when spouses come to love one another eventually, or to get to marry someone you love, but it's beside the point. From the state's point of view, the purpose of marriage is traditionally twofold: it's for the getting of children and it's to ease the burden, on the state, of responsibility for the individual's welfare.

In the United States and most Western countries now, that first consideration is not as compelling. Not only is marriage as prerequisite to parenthood becoming, if it has not already become, a cultural anachronism, but it has never been an enforceable law. The state can tacitly encourage moral and cultural rules that dictate children be born within wedlock, but it has never presumed to codify those rules. Indeed, the law recognizes the marriage contract as a legal agreement, and prohibits compulsory marriage of any kind. Conversely, most people and most cultures don't favor divorce on the basis of infertility, and, legally no one has to have sex with their spouse, let alone conceive children. Non-consummation may remain grounds for divorce, but the Coitus Police aren't coming to make sure consummation has occurred, because there is no Coitus Police. The state does not care who has sex with his or her spouse, or not.

The second reason, to have one consenting adult formally claim responsibility for the interests and welfare of another adult, is all that's left. That's why married people get tax breaks--it's quid pro quo for taking up some of the slack from the state.

A dog, a cat, a child, an inanimate object, can't enter into a legal contract. That's why they can't legally marry. Not because of the Bible, not because of God, not because it's icky. From the state's point of view, the legal point of view, sex is not necessary to marriage, and therefore it is a separate issue. You can't have sex with dogs, cats, or children because they can't consent to sex. That is separate from why you can't marry them. (This is also why the law recognizes Spousal Rape. Sex is not a given within marriage, it is separate from the legal contract.)

Another fear of those opposed to same sex marriage is that the institution might devolve further, into a meaningless arrangement between any random combinations of multiple people. “What if,” they wonder, “a group of five people all decide they’re in love and want to marry? What if you want to marry a family member just to avoid inheritance tax?” Will the concept of marriage change at the whim of every person or group of people who want to take advantage of the institution’s perks?

There is no evidence that any such wild marital free-for-all is brewing among American subcultures--most people grow up to be like the adults that raised them: gay people who grow up in a 2-person-marriages culture will mostly grow up to want to marry one other person. Nor is there a need to fear that family members might marry one another to avoid inheritance tax. Tax law in the US can hardly be accused of being inadvertently too straightforward, and delineating subtleties in the familial relationship of spouses is not outside its capabilities. Put bluntly, the IRS isn’t that easy to get over on.

Some people fear that churches shouldn't have to marry gay couples, and that's why gay marriage shouldn't be legal. But legal marriage doesn't compel any religious group to do anything. Plenty of religions--the Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Judaism immediately come to mind-- already refuse to marry certain heterosexual couples who are perfectly capable of marrying legally.

Broken down into the sum of their logical fallacies, the arguments against same sex marriage show no compelling interest for the state. As a culture grounded in equal civil rights, therefore, the United States should adopt laws that allow equal (one legal adult to one legal adult, at a time) access to marriage.