A Different Type of Union: Why Gay Marriage is a Mixed Blessing

I never much liked the idea of marriage, a phenomenon perhaps related to my phobia of commitment. But since I first started learning about the history of marriage and reading political philosophy about three years ago, the idea of marriage has been on a one way path to repugnance in my mind. So the recent adoption of a law permitting gay marriage in the state of New York I count as something of a mixed blessing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that millions more people now have the same rights as everyone else. Those rights have long been overdue. And the more places where those rights are granted makes it that much harder to deny them elsewhere. But the question is whether the right to marriage is a right that was worth fighting for in the first place. I wonder if in the push for acceptance and equality, the queer rights movement forgot to be adequately discerning about which rights to pursue.

As an atheist and a social libertarian (meaning libertarian about individual social choices), I find the institution of governmentally recognized marriage oppressive. Marriage is almost always celebrated religiously. Most marriage ceremonies take place in a church, temple, mosque, or other place of worship, and they are most often conducted by a minister, rabbi, or other religious official. The fact that there is even an argument that suggests that marriage itself is a religious term should be evidence enough of the term's association with religion. And if the government abides by its stated intention to separate church and state, it should not be engaged in the promotion of religion at the expense of non-religion.

But the social libertarian argument is even stronger. Why should the government condone some lifestyles when the alternatives present no threat to the stability, functioning, order, or peace of society? I don't care about the sex, gender, or number of partners you have, nor do I care about how much time you spend with any of them, whether those relationships be simultaneously or successively. It doesn't have any impact whatsoever on my life. So why does the government encourage marriage with tax incentives?

The gay rights movement is the perfect place to raise issues of governmental overreach on social issues. The government has no business barring people from certain rights based on sexual orientation. And so the faults of governmental regulation extending certain rights only to heterosexual couples have been exposed by the struggle for gay rights. But the struggle for gay rights could have argued that legislating incentives for certain lifestyles is completely uncalled for. Instead, it has merely asked that those incentives be extended to be more inclusive.

The government does probably have some interest in knowing whom is responsible for the raising of children as well as whom is responsible for medical decisions in the event that an individual becomes incapacitated. But in neither of those scenarios is marriage necessary. Children could be raised collectively, as in the societies of some indigenous peoples on this continent. It is already possible to designate another individual to whom one isn't married to make health decisions. The government can do all of that without having a designated status on the relationship between the two people.

Maybe I want my best friend to make my health decisions in the event of my inability to do so. Maybe a man whose wife dies wants his brother to become the second legal guardian of his children. Maybe three women want to form a union and live together and have sex together and raise children together. None of these things should be proscribed by the government. That they are is a tremendous breach of individual liberties. And while the gay rights movement had the opportunity to challenge so many of these fundamental assumptions, it has instead settled for mere acceptance into the box.

This is by no means a condemnation of the gay rights movement. It is strong, and it has overcome tremendous hurdles. This is a call to awareness about the next step we must take in the struggle for equality. Good job to the gay rights movement of New York, but this is just the beginning of getting government out of our personal decisions.