Look at Both Sides Before Passing Law
Pacific Daily News - Guam
By Carl Nelson
June 18, 2009
The modern marriage contract has evolved over
thousands of years and through hundreds of countries
and cultures. Before passing a law that would open a
door that would be next to impossible to close, it
would be wise to ask four important questions.
The first question is: Why has the marriage
contract evolved into protecting certain people?
Economist Thomas Sowell has written of three
important reasons:
# The first reason is that heterosexual marriages
tend to produce more people. Billions and billions
of non-consenting, dependant little people. The
marriage contract conveys society's self-interest in
protecting their well-being.
# The second reason is that only women become
pregnant. Unfortunately women always have a lopsided
burden in giving birth that often extends to raising
children. The marriage contract puts some teeth into
making both parents jointly responsible for the life
and health of babies they produce.
# A third, often ignored, reason is the differing
affects of time on married men and women. For
billions of women the passing of time results in a
loss of physical attractiveness. For billions of men
the same passing of time results in increasing
occupational pay, marketable skills and job status.
This makes it easier for men to leave their first
wives -- who've sacrificed years of their lives in
building homes and families -- for younger women.
The marriage contract is society's way of protecting
women's investment in marriages.
The second question is: Are there legal
instruments now available that would address the
interests of both parties in a long-term same-sex
relationship? Through the use of documents like
reciprocal powers of attorney, joint wills and
holding property in joint tenancy, in consultation
with an attorney, any couple can tailor an agreement
that protects their mutual interests and provides
for their rights in case of death or incapacitation
of a partner. Such legal expenses minimize problems
later.
The third question is: What are any possible
repercussions of passing the proposed law? One
possible complication stems from proposed civil
unions conveying "all the benefits, rights and
responsibilities given to married heterosexual
couples." The two types of unions would be separated
by a sheer legal curtain of differing names, and a
few details which could easily be swept aside by the
passing of a law that the two be treated
identically. This could open the door for lawsuits
against clergy or public officials who don't do same
sex ceremonies or laws that criminalize refusal.
The fourth question is: How many people would be
affected by such a law? Gary J. Gates, a senior
research fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual
Orientation, answers this way: "What do you mean
when you use the word 'gay?' If you mean people who
identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual in a survey,
then the answer is ... closer to one in 20. If you
define gay as having same-sex attractions or
behaviors you do get ... a bit closer to the one in
10 figure."
If we use the figures for the first group, five
people out of every 100 would be affected. Factoring
out those not interested in formalized unions would
lower that figure somewhat.
Even the simple act of crossing a road is done
while heeding advice we were given as children: Look
both ways. Certainly we need to heed that same
advice before deciding to cross a legal six-lane
highway.
