I came across some interesting thoughts about gay marriage from two straight bloggers today.
First, Ian Ayres from Freakonomics compares marriage discrimination to racial segregation:
I view the legal exclusion of gay people from marriage as morally wrong; a form of invidious discrimination. Many people hold different substantive views about marriage equality.
But in this post, I want to focus on a different question: How should people respond to the legal option of taking a benefit that is invidiously denied others? It’s a question that transcends the specific issue of same-sex marriage. You can also ask, for example, whether it would ever have been appropriate for whites to drink from a “whites only” water fountain.
When I ask my students the water fountain question, very few whites say they would drink. But at the same time, heterosexual students who strongly oppose the marriage exclusion nonetheless, like me, choose to take the benefits of marriage that are, to our minds, denied others.
If I were straight and wanted to get married, I don’t think I’d hold out for marriage equality. But that’s just me. I’ve never been much of an activist.
Meanwhile, Clever Dude wonders if government should be involved in marriage at all:
Should the government provide ANY benefits to married couples, regardless of sexual orientation?
I’m questioning the whole foundation of government involvement in the institution of marriage. You see, since marriage just boils down to a contract, much like a business agreement, does government involvement in marriage go against our capitalistic foundation? In a capitalistic society, free enterprise and the market should determine the success or failure of ventures and contractual agreements. Marriages are certainly ventures between two parties, and marriages are contracts. Would you agree?
Personally, I’m fine with any sort of marriage, as long as it’s the same for everyone.
Popularity: 35% [?]
