The issue of the definition of marriage has been in the news a lot because of President Bush. The following article is the best description of an argument in favor of the traditional definition of marriage that I’ve seen:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/191/5434976.html
Having referenced that article, I believe that there are things the article doesn’t address. While a male and female parent in a stable, loving relationship provide the best foundation for modeling behavior for children, many children will simply never experience that. Given the choice between having a male and female and a stable, loving relationship, I personally would side with the stable, loving relationship as the better foundation for raising emotionally stable children. I knew a mentally ill girl once - 5 minutes after I met her heterosexual parents I knew why she was mentally ill. I also know a lesbian couple who have adopted 5 young children out of the foster care system. These kids come from severe abuse backgrounds and, thus, are not of interest to typical DINKs who view kids as trophies, hobbies, or a chance to relive their own youth. Had it not been for this couple, these kids would have suffered in a foster care system that, no matter how well intentioned, is a far cry from the stable environment kids need to grow.
For me, there are several issues here. 1) Is the “marriage” label important? 2) Is the legal status of “marriage” important? 3) What really matters for the kids affected?
The fact is that stable relationships exist all around us regardless of how they are labelled or recognized. Some follow bloodlines, some follow legal arrangements, and some are simply the evolution of personal decisions between individuals. My wife and I do not have a marriage license - we saw no need to involve the state in our marriage. We have a common law marriage, backed up by a filed declaration of such at the Tarrant County Courthouse in Ft Worth, TX. We don’t let the lack of a “marriage license” stop us from referring to our relationship as a “marriage”. I frankly don’t believe that anyone else can be stopped from making such references either, regardless of what others think.
Net result: While I don’t think labelling matters, I also don’t believe you can prevent people from labelling things the way they see fit, even if you don’t agree with their labels.
The issue of the legal status of marriage is different. This becomes an issue because of the legal standing of each partner in relation to each other, common or shared assets, and common or shared responsibilities (like children). Much of the legal standing that comes automatically with “marriage” can be had from boilerplate legal documents that spell out rights and responsibilities for the affected parties. There could easily be a thriving legal business providing these documents for partners who want them. The fact that neither side in this debate talks about this says to me that they either don’t know this (which is hard to believe) or don’t perceive this as being the primary reason for the debate, despite what they say publicly (which is VERY easy to believe).
These kinds of legal documents won’t completely level the playing field because some of the issues involve 3rd party contracts - and who can force the 3rd party to agree? An obvious example of this is Social Security Survivor Benefits. The SSA would have to be a 3rd party to any legal arrangement between partners in order for Survivor Benefits to be issued to the surviving partner. Similarly for company sponsored health plans. In fact, I suspect that nearly all of the 3rd party contracts that matter involve money. While governments often decide policy based on the voice of the people, businesses base their policies on what makes sense for them. They have to balance the costs (in money and controversy) of any choice to provide domestic partner benefits to each kind of partner relationship with the benefits.
Net result: Many legal status issues can be resolved with no change in existing law. Some can be resolved because of evolving attitudes towards domestic partner arrangements. Those involving government policy will most likely involve changes in the law. The changes most loudly debated will be those involving a change in the distribution of money.
What really matters for the kids affected? Kids (hopefully) don’t worry about the monetary side of things. They do worry about safe/ stable environments. Safe/ stable environments help kids grow. While a heterosexual couple might be the best model for growing kids, a stable parenting model is better than an unstable/ unsafe one.
A lot of talk has been given lately to the Pension Guaranty Benefit Corporation’s potential bankruptcy due to underfunded defined benefit plans in companies that go bankrupt. Many CEO’s of companies not yet bankrupt (some airlines come to mind) have said that they cannot fully fund their pensions now, and that it could take 10 years or more to reach that point. They say it’s just impossible to do so and remain solvent.
I suggest that failing to fully fund a pension, particularly if due to inaccurate assumptions about rate of returns on funds set aside for them, is the same as the behavior of Enron and Worldcom. It amounts to accounting fraud of the highest degree. As such, companies that knowlingly produce financial statements that underrepresent the underfunded liabilities that their pensions represent are guilty of violating Sarbanes-Oxley, and should be prosecuted as such.
I suspect that CEO’s that can’t think of a way to fund those pensions will get a lot more creative about solving the problem when faced with potential prison terms.