New York State's highest court is supposed to rule today on whether the state should recognize same-sex marriage.
I've been exasperated for quite a while by debates on the issue of same-sex marriage, because there's a key question that I am not seeing being addressed, and I think it's the elephant in the room.
Why does the State recognize marriage as a legal institution?
I'm still a green de-lurker, so maybe this question has been addressed by someone more informed and eloquent. However, since I'm not seeing this matter debated in the MSM, I thought I'd try to trigger a discussion on this so that I and others might learn more about the issue.
As I see it, here are the reasons the State may recognize marriage as an institution:
1. Social Infrastructure (Thanks for the diary, Heronymous Cowherd). Encouraging small, stable nuclear families helps to organize society. Opponents of same-sex marriage would have to demonstrate that these unions are inherently less stable, and that these couples are not fit to raise children. Considering modern divorce rates, this would seem to be a difficult argument to make. Then again, if people are still arguing that global warming is a hoax, anything is possible.
2. Reproduction. From the NY Times article:
One "friend of the court" brief arguing against same-sex marriage said that opposition "is not rooted in animus towards gay and lesbians," but in the conviction that "only opposite-sex unions can both create the next generation and connect those children to the mother and father who made them."
If the ability to procreate is a prerequisite, then fertility tests should be a prerequisite for marriage just as blood tests are in some states. Men who have had vasectomies or women who have had tubal ligation should be precluded from marriage. If a couple fails to procreate after a certain amount of time, it would be reasonable to have the marriage annulled, as a breach of a social contract. Adoption rates would drop, as there would be no barren couples seeking to adopt a child.
There are other reasons for marriage, include cultural and religious. However, if you believe that Government shouldn't enforce culture, and that Church and State should be separate, then these don't address the question at hand. One of the common arguments, "It's not natural!", has to be dismissed out of hand. Civilization itself is unnatural and defies entropy. In contrast, murder, infanticide, incest, rape, polygamy theft and homosexual acts are all "natural" if we look at the animal kingdom.
To me, the current situation is essentially state-supported sexual discrimination. I think the law is essentially saying: "You may choose to enter into a binding contract with someone you (presumably)love, which the state will recognize and which will confer upon you a special legal status". Telling me that I can only marry someone of the opposite sex would be as wrong as saying I can only hire someone of the same sex.
Tom Tomorrow had a cartoon giving an overview of the history of marriage in America. The progression was from "a wife is her husband's property", to "blacks can't marry", to "whites can't marry blacks", to the current situation. Either opponents of same-sex marriage have to provide a sound basis for sexual discrimination in this case, or it has to be legalized.
Edit: updated the Tom Tomorrow link to the actual cartoon.