The Real Argument

So, a little while ago I posted in response to what I felt was a pretty rude comment in the newspaper. I recently realized that my "viewpoint" was nothing more than a smart-alec response to a argument that was a more rational framing of the issue than any other I've paid attention to.

The brief of the comment was that gay people shouldn't be able to get married because marriage is a human right and gay people aren't human.

A harsh comment, but a bit more rational then the "what's next?" argument. I think that while many of the things I write about on this blog I have a genuine interest in, nothing really hits me at a personal level like this does. Lets face it, Eli Judge could run for governor and it wouldn't have as much impact on me personally as gay marriage does. Tuition at Madison could double, but it's a hit to the wallet, not the heart.

First, lets tackle this whole "not human" thing. In general, species are separated by their inability to breed and produce fertile offspring. Whereas a donkey and a horse make an infertile mule, a gay parent and a straight parent can still have either gay or straight children. So, forget the idea of a new species, it is a complete misconception.

However, this is a good way of framing human rights. If you deny them from someone, you are essentially saying that they are not human!

Now, what makes something a human right? Really, it's a social construct. People like to believe that they will not be killed without reason. I'm sure animals think the same way, yet for some reason, I still love stepping on ants on the sidewalk. Hourly jobs are a social construct. Try telling a farmer that he can make half of their yearly income in half the time if they want too. You can't just turn a half-grown field into half of the income of a full grown field. Marriage is a social construct. Yep. People like to believe that their spouse won't leave them for no reason. Men are jealous, so here's this great social construct that ties women to men (traditionally for our society). Now, what makes this social construct a human right? Lets look deeper into what marriage is today.

While marriage used to be simply a way of holding a relationship together, it is now the determining factor in inheritance, medical rights, occupational benefits such as insurance, adoption, tax benefits, liability control, and joint ownership. How does this really effect gay people? Oh let me count the ways:

1) If a married person dies without a will, their spouse gets everything no questions asked because they jointly own everything.
2) If a married person is hospitalized and cannot make medical decisions, their spouse can step right in and make them.
3) If a married person gets insurance or other perks such as health club membership from a job, they are offered to the spouse if the spouse doesn't have the same opportunity at their job.
4) Arkansas is the only state that explicitly prohibits unmarried couples from adopting; Florida explicitly bars single and coupled GLBT people from adopting. Some states allow one GLBT person to adopt, but does not allow their partner to also adopt the child; This results in the adopted child to be torn from the family should the parent that adopted the child die or otherwise be declared unable to care for the child. Sounds pleasant, doesn't it?
5) Want to file a joint tax return? You have to be married. Want to qualify for the tax benefits? Yep, have to be officially married too. The IRS even tried to bar at least one same sex couple from filing a joint return because they didn't recognize same sex marriages. I think that whole debacle passed over quickly though.
6) If you have a car and its insurance in your name, your insurance does not normally cover damage when someone else is driving. Of course, spouses in marriage are almost always covered. Just don't forget to file the paperwork within 60 days of marriage ;)
7) I went over this one in the inheritance thing, but joint ownership itself is kind of goofy. Legally, it's almost exclusively from marriage or from legal entities that cause people to go to jail for tax evasion. Personally, its a big respect and trust thing to give your partner half of everything you own.

Well isn't that a hodgepodge of social constructs? How bout this new one: civil unions and domestic partnerships (lets call them hodgepodge just for fun). Separate but equal? Brown vs Board of Education? Wisconsin's gay marriage ban that took out hodgepodge with it? Honestly, hodgepodge would be a good consolation prize. The problem is that so many laws and policies use the word "marriage" and don't necessarily apply to hodgepodge or whatever you want to call them. Who volunteers to rewrite everything that applies to marriage so that it applies to hodgepodge too?

So, is it a human right to care for a loved one when they are unable to make medical decisions? Is it a human right for an adopted child to be adopted by both parents and cared for by either one in the absence of the other rather than getting torn away? Is it a human right to be legally recognized as a couple?

There's still a major barrier, the social construct of religion (Yes, you don't need to read that again, I did just say it). I don't mean to say that the origins of religions are untrue. Its a moot point because most religions only recognize their own religion as valid. I do know that they place an awful lot of belief in the religion itself being unfailingly holy and pure while accepting changes along the way. A very generalized example, but Jesus didn't preach violence or hate over religious dissidents, yet Popes were responsible for starting wars! So when GLBT relationships started popping up, religions suddenly have an opinion on it? Who honestly came up with the opinion? A book? Unfortunately, religions are going to do whatever they want, honestly cannot blame them. Religious people truly believe their religions, it is very respectable and I will never hold religion against someone. I will, however ask for the human right that is requested in the US bill of rights. It explicitly prohibits the government from enforcing a religion on the people. Look at Iran, it's a country of liberal people governed by religious leaders. All we see over here is the religious conservative government. So, while it is respectable to not approve of same-sex marriage due to religious beliefs, it is not alright to force those beliefs upon others.

Don't turn this into the "holiday tree" mess. Acknowledging a religion is different from pretending religion doesn't exist. To make it worse, some religions teach that in order to do your duty to God, you must convert others. A respectable duty, but not so much for the sects that believe in killing those who don't convert. Luckily we don't ever really see those in the US.

So, the next time you vote on an amendment to define marriage, think about the rights that you would not want to be denied to you, then think about whether you want to deny them to others.