Last evening I attended a seminar hosted by the Conservative Party group, cChange on the issue of civil partnerships. Civil partnerships are being advocated by the present Labour government as a way of enabling gay and lesbian couples to legally formalise their relationships in a number of ways, allowing them to take advantage of some, if not all, of the advantages now accruing to married heterosexuals.
I am not going to rehearse all the various arguments in favour or against such a move. Suffice to say that, unless some overwhelming public interest or danger can be shown to exist, the burden of proof should rest on the shoulders of those who would ban any adult – important qualification – wishing to enter into a lifetime commitment with any other person (s). (Yep, that includes polygamy, in case you are asking).
A number of other bloggers much more qualified than I, such as British ex-pat Andrew Sullivan and the group blog at the Volokh Conspiracy have argued as to why gay marriage, for instance, would be entirely consistent with a broadly socially conservative worldview. Sullivan points out that allowing gay men – like himself – to marry would probably reduce, not raise, male promiscuity and actually strengthen the bonds of civil society, including heterosexual marriage.
Last night’s seminar was interesting for several reasons. Arguing for civil partnerships was Conservative MP for Buckingham, John Bercow. Arguing against was Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips. I was pretty impressed by the quality of arguments on both sides. Bercow gave a broadly libertarian argument, one based on the idea that although ‘traditional’ marriage was a Good Thing, there was nothing so fragile about it that enabling non-straights to marry would send the world spinning out of control. Phillips argued, in essentials, that heterosexual marriage was in crisis, and that one of the chief bulwarks of this institution in the past have been taboos such as horror of adultery, child-rearing out of wedlock, and so on. Her argument was that allowing gays to marry, even if the persons concerned were utterly harmless, would tend to generally weaken what she saw as the rightfully privileged status of marriage.
From my scribbled notes, here are some quotes:
It is a mistake to say that marriage confers rights…..This is based on a misunderstanding of the marriage deal. It is the only family relationship in which the state has a direct interest – the orderly raising of children.
Marriage is a convenant that is privileged and hedged around, based on a network of rules and procedures.
It was clear from her talk, in particular, that she sees marriage firmly in the context as providing the ideal place for raising and rearing children. Even if one accepts that – and I broadly do – it makes one wonder how the marriages of childless couples, or those marriages entered into late in life, should be viewed.
The question & answer session was also interesting. I asked the panel why we had to look at marriage through Statist lenses, since marriage has been around a lot longer than the present State or indeed the Church. This produced from Conservative MP Robert Jackson the observation that the State must confer a particular status on heterosexual marriage, and hence ban gay marriage, because the State had a kind of “theocratic” or normative role in civil society.
Jackson was not the only person to voice such a view, though it is fair to say that many other commenters in the audience (about 60 people on a hot night) were more libertarian and dismissive of such concerns. Even so, I found it noteworthy that a Conservative MP like Jackson, one of the sharpest minds in the present party, could use “theocratic” as a term of praise without the slightest hint of irony. Clearly the separation of Church and State in the UK has some way to go.
A vast topic. Time for me to sign off and let the brickbats begin.
It should be noted that the marriage of childless couples, and late in life marriages are a fairly new phenomena. Through most of human history, people who got to be my age (42) would be dead by now. Infertility was little understood and other than the rhythm method, there was no birth control.
The state grants certain benefits, (not rights as I would understand them) to marriage to self perpetuate society. It is through the family that society continues, produces its next generation. In order to encourage that, and avoid the problems associated (to some degree mitigated by modern medicine) that promiscuity and orphaned children present, the state attaches certain benefits such as easing probate, and the like.
I am not sure that “theocratic” is the right word here. Marriage has worked for centuries, even before the existence of the state, and church to formalize it. While understanding how it worked or why it did may not have been contemplated to the degree we are now called upon to do so, there is no argument that it has worked at perpetuating society.
Sometimes, when something works and we don’t know why, we attribute it to God.
Gay advocacy groups in the US overwhelmingly speak out against civil union in favor of actual marriage, in name as well as legal status. Which gives the impression that their desire is less for insurance benefits and more for visible recognition from society that they’re as good as anyone else on every level (so there, nyah!).
Which is well and good, but it makes me wonder if the ability to marry is something they really want. There are plenty of heterosexuals who would be grateful to pursue long-term relationships without the specter of legal union hanging over them. In fact, more and more are doing just that. Do homosexuals really want to find themselves pressured by a partner to prove something by legalizing the relationship? Even if we assume that the stereotype of (male) homosexual promiscuity is a myth, I’m not sure this idea would survive a vote of the membership.
And assuming a divorce rate similar to that for heterosexual marriage, is the legal system ready to absorb the new business?
Legalizing domestic partnerships, as well as polygamy, will, I suspect, cost me, as a single person, money. Expenses associated with employer-provided health insurance would surely increase, thus affecting salaries and benefits for everyone. Social security costs could rise as well. Ben certainly has a point: society as a whole perceives positive value in providing tax and insurance benefits to married couples. Historically and culturally, that preference has been justified by the need to raise children. Does that positive value exist in the case of domestic partnerships or polygamy? Should people who live alone be required to subsidize gay couples? I support gay civil unions in theory, but I’d sure like to see a cost-benefit analysis.
Ellie, you make a very important point, and I tried to raise this last night when I said that all this talk about “rights” and “entitlements” showed that the discussion about gay marriages pre-supposed a continuation of high taxes, welfare benefits, etc. In fact, much of the heat of the argument would disappear if the Welfare State were sent to the ash can.
In a way, this shows how government has politicised so much of our life when previously issues like gay unions would be purely a personal, legal matter.
Sadly, I got no impression that the Tory Party policy wonks and MPs grasp this point. They still inhabit a government-centred universe.
Ellie,
There are plenty of employers who already offer health insurance benefits to partners of gay employees. In fact, many people when interviewing for a job ask whether the company they are interviewing with offers this. It is a good question to gauge just how tolerant a corporation is and what type of culture you can expect.
Additionally almost all employees offer health benefits to de-facto partners anyway.
There have been plenty of studies that show that married people are more stable and thus more productive. I would suggest that gay marriage would look extremely good in a cost-benefit analysis.
I’ve been musing on this recently myself.
My girlfriend and I would be hypocrits if we were to get married in a church and I am unable to understand why an agent of the state is required to pronounce us married in a “civil” service. Having first taken out a licence and at a place approved by the state as well mind you.
What business is it of anybody’s other than the protagonists involved quite frankly to decide who, where or when? Even the king of Rock n’ Roll requires you to get a licence from the state of Nevada.
I may have a solution. Why not a simple compact declaring the couple’s union signed by the couple and their witnessess. This could be done anywhere you could get four people, for instance a beach, a mountain top or even a back garden. Rings could be exchanged if so desired. Or not it doesn’t matter. Photos can be taken. The four declarations could then be posted recorded delivery and kept unopened. And there you have it. The couple can call themselves man and wife. The important people have said that it is so and so it is.
What is to object to about that?
James,
My employer presently provides health insurance for domestic partners of either (or any) gender, as well as coverage for dependent children. My coverage, which is part of my compensation, costs ca $3,600.00 annually. The cost for a couple is thousands more, per couple, and children push the expense even higher. In effect, a single employee receives less compensation for exactly the same work relative to anyone who covers partners and/or children. I’m subsidizing that. Furthermore, spousal insurance benefits free partners to work part-time, or not at all , all the while retaining health insurance coverage. In other words, a domestic partner retains the ‘right’ to medical benefits, whether he is employed or not. Not only do I subsidize that ‘right,’ it’s one, because I live alone, I cannot enjoy; if I want to eat, I have to work. I suppose I could enter into an agreement with a friend, either one who is rich and can free me from the need for employment, or one who is already deathly ill and will make heavy use of my insurance coverage, and enjoy that same benefit myself. The fact remains: spousal insurance and social security benefits were designed and provided
to support two parent homes in which one parent worked and the other ‘kept house.’ Society agreed to bear that burden in order to provide social support for child-rearing. I’m not clear at all where we might draw the line. As a working person, will I be expected to contribute to benefits for elderly parents living with adult children? Men with 4 wives and a boatload of children? People who share a house for economic reasons? Exactly how much of my labor will be for the benefit of others?
As far as the ‘stable relationship’ argument is concerned, I must note that the US divorce rate is sky-high, and, from what I’ve read, the separation rate for unmarried, heterosexual partners is even higher. I fear that stable unions of any sort are rapidly becoming rare indeed.
James, the only problem I see with your remark is that while it’s technically true, it doesn’t address the point of Ellie’s concern. “Many” companies do “many” things, but the legal sanction of gay marriages would require ALL employers to confer its benefits this way, whether they like it or not, as opposed to a relatively tiny voluntary fraction of them. Trying to argue that there would be no substantial change in present conditions vis-a-vis workplace benefits is obviously weak since if that were the case, there would be no srgument over it in the first place.
“As a working person, will I be expected to contribute to benefits for elderly parents living with adult children?”
You already do in the US. Its called Social Security and Medicare.
“Men with 4 wives and a boatload of children?”
You already do this in the US as well, although without the bit about “wives.” Medicaid, Aid to “Families” with Dependent Children, and sundry welfare programs subsidize the lifestyle and entertainment choices of those who want lots of sex partners without the bother of birth control. The majority of these programs target women with multiple children for which the father(s) decline to provide material support.
“Exactly how much of my labor will be for the benefit of others?”
In the US, about half so far, just counting your taxes and not the transfers and inequalities you mention.
Given that the concept of ‘family’ has changed so extensively, perhaps it’s time to rethink entirely eligibility for benefits. I can understand the need to provide insurance for the poor and uninsured, as well as the desirability of providing social support for child-rearing, but I’ve got problems with granting more economic benefits to people who are perfectly capable of earning them on their own. (I also suspect that civil union activists are, at minimum, middle class, and hence, desirous of boarding the gravy train we already provide for married couples.) Several years age, I made the difficult decision to leave a teaching job I loved in order to secure better health & retirement benefits. Certainly, educated middle class people have that option. In this day & age, I don’t see why anyone should subsidize spouses who don’t work and aren’t raising children. OTOH, I’m fine with other legal rights, such as power of attorney, inheritance rights, etc, that domestic partnership protection could provide. Just don’t make ME pay for it!
The extension of the issue to polyamory adds some interesting twists. If your company must give benefits to your “spouse”, must it give all your “spouses” benefits? If you are “married” to an individual and your sister moves in to help take care of the household while the “spouses” work, can you “marry” her to provide benefits from your employer? What if you find yourself unmarried and somewhat disabled (but still working) and your spinster sister moves in to take care of you. Should you have to marry her to get her on your health plan? Since there would be no assumption of childern in the new “marriage”, adult incest cannot be used as a cudgel against this proposition.
I wish there was a way to accomodate gay couples without unleashing a flood of unintended consequences and conflicts. The resolution of these conflicts will be yet another justification for the government to meddle.
-mp
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I seem to recall that in England you can be slurped into a state declared “civil law marriage” against your will if you live-in with the same (hetero) partner for a long while. Meaning all the interventionist crap like divorce laws starts applying whether you (both / either) want it to or not. They just declare you married because they reckon that’s what your relationship looks like.
I wonder if the new gay-partnership thing has this same evil misfeature?
I have seen a statistic that the average marriage lasts seven years and the average homosexual arrangement lasts about a year and a half. I seriously doubt that very many homosexuals want a real lifetime relationship. The rate of promiscuity, for homosexuals, especially males, is so high that to talk of any arrangement being equivalent to a marriage is nonsense. If they don’t want marriage, what do they want, besides money? Perhaps to destroy the concept of marriage, in sick revenge for their inability to function as human beings.
Gay people should be able to just get married like all the straight people. All the civil union mish-mash people are suggesting is just another way of denying gay people marriage.
All the excuses people give for gay people not being able to get married are just a cover for their own prejudices.
>>”Medicaid, Aid to “Families” with Dependent Children, and sundry welfare programs subsidize the lifestyle and entertainment choices of those who want lots of sex partners without the bother of birth control. ”
Do us a favor, T. Hartin dear, and don’t lump all us recipients into the same amoral group.
Yes, I receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Note that I leave the quotes out as I type that, because my three children and I are a family. I won’t receive it for long; I’m on it until my divorce is complete and I am able to cross the country with the three precious babies; and until then, they do need to eat. Why don’t I have a job, you ask? Because the deal was that I would be one of those stay-at-home moms who raised the kids. I was happy to do that, but when my husband/baggage/deadwood chose to put his wages into the casino rather than our common pocket, and chose to use me as a punching bag rather than a friend and partner, he broke the deal.
I don’t have a job because after 10 years out of the work force, no one wants me. I’ve checked. The second reason I don’t have a job is that I will cross the country within 2 months, and there, sell my jewelry designs at a much higher level than I have yet been able to manage. I won’t be out of a job forever; I’ll make one if I can’t find one. But until then, it’s a DAMNED good thing this aid exists.
I’m as libertarian as you all are, and a regular reader of Samizdata. I only occasionally disagree with anything posted here by any contributor. But let me tell you, when it comes down to accepting welfare vs. giving up my bodily safety, I’ll take welfare any day. I hate the state intrusion into my life and there would definitely be a better way to run the welfare system, but the fact that the system exists has just saved my ass. Literally.
Ooh, Bobby Speirs had something hurting his arse last night…
And who’s destroyed the concept of marriage? You, Bob, and all your smug conservative heterosexual brethren. Seven years is the average for marriage? C’mon, it’s supposed to be for life, isn’t it? Fat f****** marvel that is, then, if that’s all you can manage. But then you bleat about keeping married people’s tax allowances, which simply encourages scroungers who shouldn’t be together to go and get married. Well, you have reaped what you have sown from your conservative/socialist meddling in how people choose to associate with each other.
Marriage will only show its true value – which I happen to rate very high indeed, not for everyone, maybe, but I think it’s a fantastic institution – in a free market.
The matter is simple: complete equality in law. Churches, mosques, synagogues and the like, as private institutions, should not be forced to conduct marriages they disapprove of. And we should be free to criticise religious types for saying nasty things without them going running crying to the government trying to stitch us up with PC and diversity. We can’t let the barbarians run the place.
The anti-single thing is what I don’t like about changes of this sort. If the taxpayer is forced on pain of imprisonment to subsidise any group of people – which I’m not in favour of – it should be single people, who don’t have the economic benefits of everything from shared incomes and tax allowances to family-sized boxes of perishable goods.
Shana – I am sorry that your marriage went bad and all, but the sundry welfare programs aimed at moms ‘n’ kids have unquestionably subsidized a culture of irresponsibility. You may be an exception to that, but public policy should not be made based on anecdote.
Della – When you say gay people should be able to get married just like straight people, surely you don’t mean that we should force all religions to perform gay marriages, do you? Once we exempt religious marriage vows, what we are left with is, basically, civil union. I see no reason to discriminate on civil unions, but I also see no reason to mandate what a religion may or may not recognize as a marriage.
Bob Spiers, your point about gays wanting marriage because they want to damage the institution may apply to a few nutjobs on the far left, but folk like Andrew Sullivan – go and read his blog – have advocated it precisely because many gay men value commitment and would like to have that recognised in law. Wether their marriages last longer or shorter than “strait” ones is besides the point.
However, more broadly I would say the best way to protect marriage would be for the State to get out of our lives as much as possible.
Oh, BTW Bob, if you want to make bigoted anti-gay points, go somewhere else.
T. — I guess my point is that I’m using that system as it was intended, I hope — a safety net until I can get out of trouble and back on my feet. I fully agree that the system needs a total overhaul, if not outright privatization (how that would be accomplished I don’t know, but it would be possible I’m sure.) A side benefit of welfare privatization would be the ability to cut off moochers.
The same for Social Security and Medicare. The huge load of recipients in these programs makes it difficult now — it should have been started out as a private program, if this were a perfect world — but all us single folks (I include myself, if a little prematurely) wouldn’t have bear such huge costs. Just the trimming of bureaucracy if these programs were privatized would save billions.
Admittedly I haven’t thought this out completely, but since my business right now is to figure out how to live from this point forward, I feel I can leave the figuring to someone else.
T. Hartin,
Gay people should have the option of being married in a church if the church is willing to perform this loving act for them. On the other hand if it is the sort of church that believes that to love God one must also hate gay people (amoungst others), then they should be perfectly free to refuse to marry gay people.
(music on) State and Marriage, State and Marriage…go together like a horse and carriage… (music off)
Get rid of state recognized marriage. All marriages should be civil unions. This would have a pleasant side-effect of allowing other “novel” forms of family and group structures…something which I think is badly needed in modern society.
Jonathan hit the nail square on the head: “In fact, much of the heat of the argument would disappear if the Welfare State were sent to the ash can.”