This letter has been around for a while. It's actually a copy of a public letter that BRUX mailed to the White House. He followed that up with additional copies sent to various friends and correspondents, including me. I was reminded of it yesterday in observing the evolution of the letter column, along with my reference to my "wife". The connection will be explained in due course, but first the letter:

Me:

Last fall I had a lengthy email exchange with my friend REG on this subject. Unfortunately, neither of us saved the correspondence, so it's gone now.

The subject came up when REG saw me make reference to my wife, prompting him to inquire about my current marital status (hence the connection mentioned above). The story here is that I have a confusing habit of referring to Karen interchangeably as my "wife", my "girlfriend", or my "fiancée". (This in addition to the further confusion that she has the same first name as my mother, whom some of you have met.)

In legal fact, she is not my wife, as we have never registered our marriage with the state of Washington or any other government, but when I'm in a libertarian frame of mind -- which is often -- I think that whether or not I'm married is a matter of personal commitment between me and my wife and our immediate community, and I don't need a marriage certificate from the government to be married any more than I need a birth certificate to be born. Karen and I have discussed this, and I know that she shares my basic sentiment -- and even calls me "husband" occasionally -- but without being quite so exercised about it.

On the other hand, when I'm feeling more conformist, or just simply wish to avoid confusing people, I'll use a more accommodating label which is also accurate, such as "fiancée" or "girlfriend" or "love of my life". Also, I've been told by acquaintances who have been married both in and out of the eyes of the law that in some mysterious way having that government stamp of approval really does change things, whether we want to admit it or not. It may be that they have a point; I wouldn't know.

The ease with which I blur the legal distinction of marriage undoubtedly has something to do with having spent so much time among gay couples. I used to work in the professional music business in the San Francisco area, where such couples are numerous. It was pretty common to hear a gay man refer to his "husband" or a gay woman to refer to her "wife". It was understood by everyone that none of these couples had a legally recognized marriage, but using the terminology of marriage was a statement about the nature of the relationship. Another gay couple might have a relationship with a lesser level of commitment, in which case "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" might be more appropriate. The distinction was real, and it had nothing to do with the government.

This is the background I bring to the current debate about gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, in all the ways that are truly meaningful, gay couples already have the ability to be married. That's why I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter at all. So long as gay people aren't being grossly mistreated, I don't really care much whether they can obtain marriage licenses from the state.

It seems to me that if you're married and the government refuses to license it, there are two things you're missing out on. One is the opportunity to enter into a legal/economic contract in which you get a large collection of rights in exchange for undertaking certain responsibilities. The other is that you get an official stamp of approval whereby American society as a whole tells you that they think your relationship is OK.

For the former, I think that if the contract is available, it ought to be equally available to any two adults, so in that sense I think the current situation (before the most recent developments) is indeed illegal discrimination against gay people. As institutional discriminations go, it's a bad thing and ought to be corrected, but it still doesn't rank high on my priorities list compared to various other fairness-related political causes.

My further opinion on this contract is that denying it to two adults who are related by blood is equally unfair. On the other hand, I think it's perfectly reasonable to deny the contract to any person already engaged in the same contract with someone else, or to limit the contract to two parties, or to deny the right to contract with any individual who is a minor or not a human being at all.

Some would say that means I'm opposed to bigamy, group marriage, pedophilia and bestiality but in favor of incest*, but that misses the point. What we're talking about here is a collection of legal and economic rights. Any connection it has with love or sex is only coincidental. Lord knows that there have been plenty of successful legal marriages in which love, sex, or both were lacking. Those elements may be an essential part of true marriage, but they aren't a requirement for the legal variety.

As for the second part, the official recognition, I see no good reason for the government to be offering that to anyone. So to whatever extent the movement for gay marriage is an effort by gay people to have the government say "yes, we accept the legitimacy of your love", I think the government's answer ought to be "no". But I also think that when straight couples ask for the same thing, the answer ought to be "no" to them, too (and it currently isn't).

This puts me in the camp with quasi-libertarians on both the left and the right who are arguing that the government ought to get out of the business of marriage altogether. Conservative defenders of marriage like to point to us and say that it proves that we "liberals" really are trying to destroy the institution of marriage altogether. Well, they're half right, anyway. I love the institution of marriage, I just don't want the government running it. Aside from the economic and legal rights, what is the essence of marriage anyway? It's spiritual and it's personal. What can the government add to that? And to the extent that it's also religious, government involvement is unconstitutional, too.

Regarding the legal question -- I'm one of those old-fashioned people who still believe it's possible to separate one's policy opinion from one's interpretation of the law -- I haven't seen enough to really judge, but on first glance it looks to me like the Massachusetts court got it right. If marriage constitutes a government entitlement, then it should be offered to everyone or to no one.

I must say, although I don't much care about whether gay couples get government acknowledgment of their marriages, it amuses me that the political culture has developed in such a way that my crazy idea of getting government out of marriage altogether is actually being seriously discussed. Maybe some day it will happen for my even crazier idea of getting government out of education.

Then again, maybe not.

* My position on pedophilia and "pedophilia" is already suspect, after a certain book review. As for the others, I'm not opposed to any of them so long as they are consensual, and in one case establishing consensuality is especially problematic.

4:42:45 PM  [permalink]  comment []