I've been doing some thinking about the recent court decision in MA. It's prompted a number of different thoughts. First, I wonder whether the court's ruling will allow same sex couples "married" in Mass. to claim married status on their federal 1040. If so, it would seem germane for pairs of heterosexual individuals not already so attached to enter into marriage with a same-sex friend or associate in order to reap the tax benefits. I don't know what a marriage license costs in the state, but if one assumes that the cost is amoritized over a period of at least a couple years (until one or both of the individuals decides to actually get married for the more traditional purposes) it would seem worthwhile. No love would need to be involved, and certainly sex would not be needed. Indeed, cohabitation, or even interaction with your spouse above and beyond what occured prior to the union would be completely unecessary. All that would be necessary would be some sort of no fault pre-nup that allowed each partner to retain all of their own property. One even has ready excuse for divorce when the time comes for one of the members of the business venture to get married "for real"... marital infidelity is grounds for divorce inany state (I believe) and these days most couples would be haivng sex before their honeymoon anyhow.
Now, one might think that the size of this loophole is being overstated. After all, nothing in the current body of law seems to prevent a man and a woman from entering into just such a business venture, and we don't see all sorts of "marriages of economic convenience" among heterosexuals, do we? Well, first of all, I don't know that there are any figures that exist on such unions. However, more importantly, I think it is inherently more likely that two same sex friends would be able to enter into such a business agreement without emotional involvement than would a male and a female friend. See
Grace, Will and.
I want to come back to the implications of this later, but first let me bring up another objection to the court's decision. I don't think that this is an equal protection case, and yet they decided it as if it was. The analogy was that the state could not institute a contract by the name of "civil union" that was substantially the same as the other contract called "marriage" and only allow people of a certain sexual preference to enter into the "civil union". Shades of "seperate but equal" public schools, buses etc. etc. in the south during segregation... or so the court opined. It sounds pretty terrible when phrased in such a manner.
However... under the previous law regarding marriage, anyone, no matter what their sexual orientation, could get married. Homosexuals were treated exactly the same by the law as heterosexuals. Anyone of sufficient age could get married to someone of the opposite sex. They could do so for "love", for money, for security, for status, for children... any reason they liked. Simultaneously, no two people of the same sex, no matter what their sexual orientation, could enter into the contract called "marriage" with one another. They could not do so for any reason -- not for "love", not for money, not for security, not for status, not for children. That was simply the nature of the contract called "marriage" and it treated everyone under the law equally.
The problem seems to be that now the court in Massachusettes has deemed it fit that the government can declare not only that "love" is the "correct" reason for marriage, but also that the government can make a determination of who loves who. This seems implicit in the courts decision. The idea seems to be that since two homosexual individuals can't really in good conscience enter into the contract called "marriage" because of the reason called "love", that therefore the contract itself is discriminatory towards them on the basis of their sexuality.
Yet where are those supporting the "right to privacy", those who abhor the idea of the government in their bedroom? The Mass. court has determined that because a homosexual cannot "enjoy" sexual intercourse with their opposite sex marriage partner under the current law, therefore the law must be discriminatory to them. What next? A man who finds his wife holding out on him will be allowed the right to a second wife? A woman who only enjoys sex with two other people at once shall be allowed to have both a wife and a husband? Of course it seems absurd, but it is absurdity that you get when the government gets into the business of the boudoire.
Both this and my first question lead to one inescapable conclusion: government shouldn't be in the marriage business. I mean, "marriage license"?? What the hell is that anyhow? It's not even on the same level as having a car license to help finance the public good of the state highway system. Certainly couples might stand to lose out if IRS just threw out all difference between filing singly or as married.. on the other hand, as we can see here, whenever the government gives something it also takes something away.
Historically speaking, from a Christian perspective, marriage is an institution of the church, not of the state. Just like most other matters of the church however, it seems that it's gotten intertwined in politics over the centuries. In other societies and religious traditions I'm not certain where marriage fell on the religious-political spectrum. However, I do know that even societies that were much more tolerant of homosexuality (at least among men) didn't engage in the business of marrying men to other men. The Greek system of erastus-eremenos coexisted with marriage, and one or both of the partners could theoretically be married to a woman. Obviously, the fact that no historical society has allowed such an institution doesn't a priori mean that we should not adopt it now, but it should give one pause.
