Treatment of same-sex unions shows legal flaws
Eliot M. Held
class of 1997
This letter is in response to James Mangrum's Nov. 15 letter about same-sex marriage. I believe he is right in his conclusion that the government ought not value one relationship over another. But the example of homosexual marriage is only one symptom of how marriage law is flawed.
The essential problem is not that the government does not recognize a particular type of relationship, but that the government ascribes any legal status at all on the personally chosen relationship of any two persons whatsoever.
Marriage laws generally violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, in particular in that people are treated differently under the law based on marital status (reference the legal rights and responsibilities that you mentioned come along with marriage).
For example, a married couple with two incomes pays a higher percentage of taxes if they file together, because their combined income puts them into a higher tax bracket than they would otherwise be if they were to file separately. Would anyone dream of forcing my girlfriend and I to file jointly with the same result? Of course not.
Also, a man whose wife conceives another man's child while married to him can be legally bound to care for that child even if it is proven not to be his. Could this happen to a single man who "passed" his DNA test? Of course not. This example is a remnant of English common law that has been rendered utterly obsolete by scientific advancement.
At the other end, single people often pay higher insurance rates than otherwise identical married people. If such a statistical adjustment were made for race or religion, there would be rightful outrage, although there might indeed be statistical proof that, for example, white men have a higher suicide rate than black men or that they cause more car accidents, apparently justifying higher life and auto insurance premiums. But even with rock-solid statistical evidence, would any insurance company dream of implementing such adjustments? Of course not.
Finally, when you have a health insurance plan from your employer, your family is often covered. This typically means your spouse and children are covered. What about a single person with an aging parent or sick sibling? These are typically not covered. But why should this employee pay the same premium and receive less coverage? It amounts to unequal benefits for equal work, all because of arbitrary legal recognition of one personal relationship over another.
These are only a few examples. So the debate goes far beyond homosexual unions, although that situation certainly provides an excellent example of the dubious nature of marriage law. Marriage is in fact an inherently religious institution, and the societal good that comes from marriage is because of the practice of monogamy that accompanies it, not from the certificate of marriage itself. That the one can (and often does) exist without the other shows that marriage has no inherent societal benefit. Our long history of governments led by well-intentioned, deeply religious men has left us an unfortunate legacy of a legal relationship between the sacrament of marriage and the judiciary.
Only when governments cease to recognize any human relationship over another, and to grant or deny rights accordingly, aside from the necessary protections of helpless children from neglectful or abusive parents, will this incestuous relationship of church and state finally be granted a long-needed annulment.
Eliot M. Held
class of 1997
Nov. 15
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, November 18, 2002
