Unintended Consequences
First, let me start by saying that I think this is all a good thing.
So, I saw in the news this week that another state has upheld the right of same sex couples to marry. I think this is a good thing. If one truly believes in the separation of church and state then defining marriage in terms of a particular religion’s view of a committed partnership, the lines are being blurred. A civil marriage is a contract, plain and simple. Call it by any name you like, marriage, domestic partnership, I don’t care. It’s still all the same. It’s a contract. A commitment to another person, primarily, a financial and fiduciary commitment, but, still, it is what it is.
Perhaps I’ve read too much science-fiction, but I think it’s time we, as a nation, learn to accept that people are going to arrange their love lives along lines that, frankly, we cannot dictate. People’s hearts will do what they will and trying to legislate something else is, well, foolish, I think. I suppose it would irk my conservative father, but I really haven’t seen anything wrong with marriage as a simple, civil contract between two consenting adults who wish to simplify certain financial arrangements for a long time. And, I’d even take that a step further and allow plural marriage, among legal adults, if it was so desired. It’s an old-fashioned notion that marriage, as a contract, should be between just two people. Of course, we have to draw the line somewhere, I suppose, and same-sex marriage is at least a start
But, I think some people are forgetting the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Consider, for a moment, taxes. Will same-sex marriage partners be assessed a marriage tax? I think they should be, just like heterosexual couples. Will employers count them the same? Will benefits pay the same? Will this finally end all justifications for pay inequality between men and women? After all, one of the several justifications I’ve heard for paying men more than women was that men more often had to take care of a family. Well, now, the reverse may finally be true in the eyes of the people who matter, regardless of how long it may have actually been true. Perhaps, I dream too large.
Still, the real ramifications of these decisions being made won’t be felt for many years to come. By definition, we cannot know all the myriad ways this will effect our society. I hope everyone who has wanted this so badly is willing pay the prices to go with the change.
Both the prices we know now, and the prices that have yet to be tallied.
UPDATE: You know, after reading this entry this morning, it occurs to me that I should have added that I hope the people who have agitated for this are, in fact, willing to pay all the prices for this to truly succeed everywhere. Because, I think it’s worth the price. Truly, I do. It’s just that so often, we want the change without considering what the change will really mean.
I hope it means that some of my homosexual friends can finally enjoy the same misery, and joy, of being married that the heteros have for, lo, these many years.
Perhaps marriage is the place we really need to look at when dealing with gender inequalities. Being denied the right to enter into a legal contract because of gender is wrong. But then, religion in general likes to keep women in their place.
As far as changes, we are always in a state of change. You assume that the financial changes that occur because gender is taken out of the mix will hurt us as a society. I disagree. People will find a way to make it work. That’s how we survive.
Comment by Cheri — 10/15/2008 @ 11:30 am
No, actually, I assume that the gender-based financial inequality will not change at all! But, it would be nice to see it change.
I can still remember how shocked I was to hear from a colleague in IT about how much less she was paid than a male in a similar position. I’d always figured that because IT was so skills-based the inequality would be less, but it wasn’t.
We’re such a backward society in so many respects still, I often wonder how it is we made it this far!
Comment by the Network Geek — 10/15/2008 @ 12:19 pm
So long as we can retain the rights not NOT marry and still not be seen as lessser people…
Comment by Fiona — 10/15/2008 @ 9:21 pm
Well, Fiona, I can’t speak for you Australians, but, truthfully, sometimes you all seem quite a bit more equal than we are. At least to my American eyes. For a country that claims to prize freedom, we aren’t very free sometimes. And, gender politics have always confused me. In part, I think because I grew up with pretty strong women in my family to model behavior for me.
But, also? Women have always just confused me a little.
Comment by the Network Geek — 10/15/2008 @ 9:52 pm
I’ve never understood the reasoning behind not allowing G&L’s to marry since they would contribute to the marriage tax as well as the economy (weddings and all that it entails).
As for women and equality in America…ask me again when we have a woman President. The good ole’ boys club is alive and well in the USA…unfortunately.
Comment by Jenn — 10/16/2008 @ 3:51 pm
Yeah, even though I theoretically benefit from that, it still makes me sad that it’s true. (But, for the record, it was only in my innocent youth that I actually thought we might have achieved something that resembles “equality”. As a grown up, I’ve learned better. *sigh*)
Comment by the Network Geek — 10/16/2008 @ 4:48 pm