If marriage is so good, why not invite everyone in? (Australian columnist)

[alp227]

I found this on the Sydney Morning Herald website. Looks like same-sex marriage is being debated big time in Australia right now. According to Wikipedia's article about LGBT rights in Australia: gays have been able to serve openly in military since 1992 (a year before the regressive American "don't ask don't tell" policy!), and the provinces Tasmania, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales allow registered same-sex relationships.

If marriage is so good, why not invite everyone in?

by Chris Berg

IT DIDN'T take much for a wave of pro-gay marriage sentiment to echo through the socially liberal wing of the Labor Party.

A Greens motion that politicians should ''gauge their constituents' views'' on gay marriage (which you'd have thought was their job anyway) has led a growing list of Labor MPs to declare their support. And Julia Gillard has brought Labor's national conference forward six months so her party can debate the issue next year.

That's Labor. What about the Liberals?

You'd think conservative opposition to same-sex marriage would be a no-brainer. Resistance to major social reform is seen as part of the DNA of Australian conservatism. Certainly, no Liberal politicians have stuck their necks out. Malcolm Turnbull, who you'd think would be the best bet, has made it clear he believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yet there is a strong conservative argument for legalising gay marriage. Conservatives who decry the decline of marriage as an institution are right. Straight people have been undermining the sanctity of marriage for decades. This is a bad thing.

Marriage is a private form of social welfare. Spouses insure each other against sudden loss of income. Married couples are less vulnerable to financial stress than single people.

The benefits of marriage on mental health and wellbeing, income and happiness are widely acknowledged. Married people tend to lead more stable lives. Their relationships are more durable.

Those past three sentences convey what opposition of same-sex marriage is about: not protecting tradition, but rather shaming and dehumanizing gays. Which Berg states later:

So extending the marital franchise to gay and lesbian couples would multiply the number of Australians who can join this crucial social institution, spreading the positive impact of marriage on society.

The most common conservative case against gay marriage is that the very idea is an oxymoron; marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. But this seems less about protecting the sanctity of marriage and more about protecting the sanctity of the dictionary.

Conservatism isn't opposed to change. It simply seeks to make change manageable. And if the symbolic value of the word ''marriage'' is important, then the social benefits accrued by that symbolism should be available to same-sex couples. On the other hand, if the word is merely shorthand for a utilitarian contractual relationship between two rational, calculating individuals, then barring gay individuals from signing such a contract is obviously discriminatory.

Conservatives have one more question to be answered. Doesn't gay marriage hurt straight marriage? That's an empirical question we can measure.

In their book Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned From the Evidence, William Eskridge and Darren Spedale look at the effect that recognition of same-sex relationships - marriage and civil unions - has had on Scandinavia since Denmark introduced registered partnerships in 1989. The authors found that after nearly two decades of registered partnerships in Scandinavia, social indicators, if anything, were getting better. Total divorce rates were lower. There were higher rates of straight marriage, fewer out-of-wedlock births.

[elocs]

1. But 'is' marriage so good? If someone invited you to invest is a business venture

that failed half the time would you jump at the opportunity?

[Mumble]

2. Only 1 in 10 start-up businesses make it 5 years.

Doesn't stop people from throwing all their savings into a new business. Worse odds of sucess than marriage.

[elocs]

3. 43% of first marriages in the U.S. end in 15 years,

but I wouldn't invest in a start-up business either. Not impressed with the success rate of either. Worse and bad odds. Pass. Just a matter of personal choice.

[Skittles]

4. LET "EM BE MISERABLE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE

yes INDEED :D

[Bluenorthwest]

5. But here our 'leadership' shouts Jesus and Cooties and

runs around with invective spouting hate preachers to prove how religious they are....

[tblue37]

6. A recent newspaper article said that 40% of Americans polled

believe that marriage has become obsolete. You'd think conservatives would welcome those who still believe that marriage is a contract worth entering into. Rather than undermining marriage, having mrore people who want to get married, in a social climate where nearly half consider marriage obsolete, would seem to be a good thing in terms of conservative social values.