Actually, I Don’t Support Gay Marriage

[From The Free Radical]

In denying accusations of being "right wing" (and attempting to explain that politically "not left wing" does not mean "right wing") the question was put to me, as an acid test of sorts I suppose, as to whether or not I supported gay marriage. In an unusual and almost unprecedented act, I stopped to think before opening my mouth. And the conclusion I have reached is that, in fact, I do NOT support gay marriage. In fact I am vehemently opposed to it with all the rabidity of a hellfire and brimstone televangelist. Though not for the same reasons:

I don't consider myself interested in or concerned with the sexual activities of consenting adults.

I don't believe an imaginary Boss-In-The-Sky says it is an abomination.

I don't believe it will bring about the downfall of Western civilisation.

It has nothing to do with being "right wing."

The reason I oppose gay marriage (actually it's such a hot and controversial topic it deserves capitals: Gay Marriage!) is because it further promulgates state interest in areas where none is warranted. I don't support Gay Marriage because I do support the denationalisation of romance and relationships.

Homosexual couples can maintain romantic and sexual partnerships with just as much freedom as heterosexual couples and set contractual conditions for such relationships for all that I care or consider. In fact the romantic and sexual lives of people I don't know, homosexual or heterosexual, do not concern or interest me, only the happiness of those people I know and value. The state however has the temerity to issue marriage licenses. Stop and think about that: drivers license, dog license, liquor license ... marriage license??? And only marriage contracts validated with a state-issued marriage license are legally recognised. It's such an entrenched part of our culture that often we don't pause to consider the utterly absurd and frankly insulting notion that the state has a place licensing romantic contracts between individuals.

As it stands, in a world where certain privileges - especially in the area of taxes and property rights - are bestowed on married couples, state recognition of a romantic relationship involving long term cohabitation, regardless of the gender of the individuals and whether or not theirs is a "conventional" arrangement, is only fair. The "civil union" as implemented in New Zealand is a good concession on that part alone. But it's a slap in the face really isn't it? "Here you go, here's all the tax and property privileges - but we won't let you call it marriage; we'll maintain the monopoly on that notion if you don't mind."

But ideally the state's involvement would extend only so far as to the enforcing of contractual obligations between consenting adults - who have freely entered into such arrangements. The state would have no place deciding who was granted the privilege of entering into such contracts.

The key, the very key, to the right to gay marriage is not extending the right via the state, but to rescind the state's "right" to determine what constitutes marriage and to whom they grant such a privilege. If indeed the last bureaucrat was strangled to death with the entrails of the last priest (to paraphrase Diderot) tomorrow, would we as a species be left wandering around, philandering willy-nilly and unable to form lasting, mutually beneficial, romantic relationships and commit to contractual obligations associated with such? Or would we get on with our lives and freely enter into whatever arrangements we desired with whomsoever we choose? Laissez-faire marriage if you will.