Maggie vs. Mass. Marriage
Maggie Gallagher has a column on why she would support--for political reasons--a Federal Marriage Amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but that also allowed for civil unions--which she opposes. It's an interesting article, and I agree with much of what she says, but I must take exception to a few points.
First of all she claims that "same-sex marriage advocates" when referring to the "benefits of marriage" generally mean only things like social security benefits, hospital visitation, and health care. If that were the case, then civil unions would be fine. Most same-sex marriage advocates that I've seen--GLAD, HRC, etc.--have argued that marriage includes intangible benefits as well and therefore civil unions does not suffice in order to satisfy equal protection concerns. This was also the position of the Mass SJC.
Maggie then spends considerable length arguing that the "legal benefits" of marriage aren't really all that great, in fact some of the incidents of marriage actually burden one or both spouses. She notes that this would be particularly true for gay and lesbian couples because, "The general rule in federal marriage law: The more egalitarian the couple, the more likely they are to face marriage penalties rather than benefits." and " Same-sex couples are more egalitarian in their relationships than opposite-sex couples" She feels this explains why "when gay and lesbian couples are at long last offered the much-heralded legal `benefits' of marriage, relatively few are interested."
As I said before, I agree with much of this, but the problem is she's treating people as members of some larger group and not as individuals. Gay and lesbian couples are less likely in general to benefit from certain provisions of marriage, but what about the gay or lesbian couple that is likely to benefit. Her argument gets even worse when she tries to justify the discrimination by claiming most same-sex couples do not want to marry. Imagine a law that said women could not be engineers because most women do not want to be engineers.
Of course, marriage is more than just some legal benefits, and this is precisely what Maggie argues for most of the article. She notes the value of the law in sustaining marriage is...
by (a) defining who is married and (b) maintaining the basic norms of what marriage means, including sexual fidelity, mutual responsibility for children, and permanence.
I agree. This is exactly why it is important for the law to be clear that these same-sex couples are married. When those couples marry they are embracing the same norms Maggie is promoting. Marriage is important to those couple in the same way that it is important for opposite-sex couples. They are asking to be subjected to the same laws, regulations, and societal norms. I find it amazing that Maggie claims to be pro-marriage, yet when it comes to same-sex couples she argues that cohabitation is better than marriage.
First of all she claims that "same-sex marriage advocates" when referring to the "benefits of marriage" generally mean only things like social security benefits, hospital visitation, and health care. If that were the case, then civil unions would be fine. Most same-sex marriage advocates that I've seen--GLAD, HRC, etc.--have argued that marriage includes intangible benefits as well and therefore civil unions does not suffice in order to satisfy equal protection concerns. This was also the position of the Mass SJC.
Maggie then spends considerable length arguing that the "legal benefits" of marriage aren't really all that great, in fact some of the incidents of marriage actually burden one or both spouses. She notes that this would be particularly true for gay and lesbian couples because, "The general rule in federal marriage law: The more egalitarian the couple, the more likely they are to face marriage penalties rather than benefits." and " Same-sex couples are more egalitarian in their relationships than opposite-sex couples" She feels this explains why "when gay and lesbian couples are at long last offered the much-heralded legal `benefits' of marriage, relatively few are interested."
As I said before, I agree with much of this, but the problem is she's treating people as members of some larger group and not as individuals. Gay and lesbian couples are less likely in general to benefit from certain provisions of marriage, but what about the gay or lesbian couple that is likely to benefit. Her argument gets even worse when she tries to justify the discrimination by claiming most same-sex couples do not want to marry. Imagine a law that said women could not be engineers because most women do not want to be engineers.
Of course, marriage is more than just some legal benefits, and this is precisely what Maggie argues for most of the article. She notes the value of the law in sustaining marriage is...
by (a) defining who is married and (b) maintaining the basic norms of what marriage means, including sexual fidelity, mutual responsibility for children, and permanence.
I agree. This is exactly why it is important for the law to be clear that these same-sex couples are married. When those couples marry they are embracing the same norms Maggie is promoting. Marriage is important to those couple in the same way that it is important for opposite-sex couples. They are asking to be subjected to the same laws, regulations, and societal norms. I find it amazing that Maggie claims to be pro-marriage, yet when it comes to same-sex couples she argues that cohabitation is better than marriage.