There's a non-personal reason to support gay marriage and it surprises me that it gets so little attention.
The whole point of the legal recognition of the civil contract known as marriage is to provide a formal framework for the exchange of privileges for responsibilities. By way of extremely simplified example, if my boyfriend gets knocked-down in a hit and run collision on his way to work and has no way to pay his bills, I have no obligation to pay them for him and therefore the burden falls (at least hypothetically) upon the State. If he is my husband, however, I am obligated to pay his bills. The State rewards me for this by giving me certain financial advantages. In addition to such concrete benefits, the State also gets some intangible rewards for recognizing marriage.
In the absence of threat to its well-being, the State has no vested interest in which exact person marries which other exact person. In other words, assuming that we're both legal adults who are capable of understanding and agreeing to a civil contract, aren't closely related, and aren't committing fraud by entering a contract with terms we have no intention of following, there isn't any reason for the State to care if my partner and I are the same sex, different sexes or et cetera (by which I mean one or both of us could be intersexed or decline to acknowledge a sex, or what have you.)
Except in as absolutely necessary to protect the State, I don't believe it is either a right or a privilege of the State to legislate morality. That is, I don't care if one thinks homosexuality is moral or immoral, unless one can prove actual damage to the State by allowing homosexual marriage--which I don't believe that one can--there is no reason for the State to deny it.
Just as the separation of Church and State benefits both Church and State, I quite firmly believe that separating the issue of "morality" and the issue of state-sanctioned marriage will benefit us all. I think that one of the reasons these stupid bans keep passing is that people on both sides of the issue insist on arguing it as a moral issue when, really, it's not, or at least it shouldn't be. I don't think the State should be in the business of regulating morality except as absolutely necessary, such as in the form of laws against murder, violence, theft and et al, and really, you can argue even those laws as being outside of State-regulated morality when you consider the actual damage those acts cause the State.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 04:35 am (UTC)The whole point of the legal recognition of the civil contract known as marriage is to provide a formal framework for the exchange of privileges for responsibilities. By way of extremely simplified example, if my boyfriend gets knocked-down in a hit and run collision on his way to work and has no way to pay his bills, I have no obligation to pay them for him and therefore the burden falls (at least hypothetically) upon the State. If he is my husband, however, I am obligated to pay his bills. The State rewards me for this by giving me certain financial advantages. In addition to such concrete benefits, the State also gets some intangible rewards for recognizing marriage.
In the absence of threat to its well-being, the State has no vested interest in which exact person marries which other exact person. In other words, assuming that we're both legal adults who are capable of understanding and agreeing to a civil contract, aren't closely related, and aren't committing fraud by entering a contract with terms we have no intention of following, there isn't any reason for the State to care if my partner and I are the same sex, different sexes or et cetera (by which I mean one or both of us could be intersexed or decline to acknowledge a sex, or what have you.)
Except in as absolutely necessary to protect the State, I don't believe it is either a right or a privilege of the State to legislate morality. That is, I don't care if one thinks homosexuality is moral or immoral, unless one can prove actual damage to the State by allowing homosexual marriage--which I don't believe that one can--there is no reason for the State to deny it.
Just as the separation of Church and State benefits both Church and State, I quite firmly believe that separating the issue of "morality" and the issue of state-sanctioned marriage will benefit us all. I think that one of the reasons these stupid bans keep passing is that people on both sides of the issue insist on arguing it as a moral issue when, really, it's not, or at least it shouldn't be. I don't think the State should be in the business of regulating morality except as absolutely necessary, such as in the form of laws against murder, violence, theft and et al, and really, you can argue even those laws as being outside of State-regulated morality when you consider the actual damage those acts cause the State.