Sunday 3 February 2008

Pic of the day: You may now kiss the bride, then proceed to steal other people's hard-earned money in broad daylight.

Marriage – who cares?

There is a lot of brouhaha about gay and lesbian marriage these days. In the USA, the conservatives are generally trying to outlaw it. Here in Norway, the socialists are trying to in-law it. There seems to be a small but distinct majority in favor of making marriage gender-neutral here, as opposed to having a separate "partnership" institution with the same economic effects. I am not sure if this change will require religious institutions to marry homosexuals if they want to keep their license to marry at all. I am pretty sure the state-owned Lutheran church will start marrying gays and lesbians pretty soon at least, although I suppose old priests may be allowed to die off rather than be booted. Perhaps.

All this is terribly interesting for gays and Republicans, but nobody asks the real question. Nobody except me, that is. This is what you should have come to expect from me. The real question is: Why should it matter who is married? Why would I even want to know? (Unless I was about to date them, of course. That's not what I am talking about.)

From the cases I have seen over in America, gay couples sue their employer because they don't get the same benefit as straight couples. That is again probably a very reasonable thing to do if you are gay. But why should couples have benefits at all? In other words, why should co-dependent people be subsidized by independent people?

Mind you, I am all for subsidizing children. We pay for them now, they pay for us later. It is an investment in my pension. Besides, humans have overall turned out very handy. The more there are of us, the more amazing inventions and the more art. There is still room for more, if they would kindly eat veggies instead of meat. More than that, children are the future. Even though I don't have children of my own, much of what I do presupposes that there will be children to carry civilization into the future. In any case, paying for children is a defensible expense. Paying for other people's spouses is not. Let them pay for their own spouses.

***

Before the 1960es, heterosexual couples had a very large chance of having children. So I suppose there was no need back then to differentiate between couples and families. If a married couple did not have children, it was supposedly not for lack of trying, and should not be held against them. But this is entirely different today. Having children is a separate choice from marrying. In some places, more children are born out of wedlock than in. While conservatives are still likely to marry once they get pregnant, the marriage is a result of the child rather than the other way around.

Marriage does not have any effect on other people than the married couple. Except when they get benefits from their employer or the state, benefits that either come raining down from Heaven on the wings of angels or are paid by the unmarried. Your guess is as good as mine. In fact, I am pretty sure your guess is the same as mine.

Unless you are a close friend or family, I don't really care whether you are married. I do however care that you want me to pay your bills for no good reason. Even the phone companies here has this now: Family members – included couples – can call each other for free. Yes there is a free lunch! No there isn't. I am paying for it. That's OK because I have enough money to live my life, but it is still a sneaky thievery. Married couples who lay claim to the various benefits, be it tax reductions or health plans or phone plans, are simply petty thieves. Not that I will condemn that. Stealing when you have the opportunity is a natural thing to do, especially when all the others around you do it. I don't really expect better. I've taken some extra-long pauses at work myself at times, stuff like that. But it is certainly nothing to be proud of. I don't sue my employer to demand cash for the private phone calls I don't get to take because I have no one to call.

Rather than legislate homosexual marriage, it would behoove a rational government to de-legislate marriage. If your religion requires you to marry before you can have sex (as is the case for Christians, the few that are left of them) then by all means have your Elders marry you. It is important for you, possibly for God, but not for me. By all means share with me your joy over your newfound marital status, but don't steal my stuff. It is a private matter between you, your spouse and your God if any. It should not be legislated for or against in any way. We don't legislate baptism or communion, to the best of my knowledge. Why would we do it with another sacrament? The government has too many things on its hands already. It is time to take this part off.

With employers it is slightly different. They should, in my opinion, be free to favor one group of employees over another with no rational reason. Why? Because it is their money. If they want to pay extra for married people, peace be upon them. Same if they decide to pay extra to white Christian heterosexual males. Who cares? It is their money. But if you think one of these is a bad idea, then you should also think the other is a bad idea. For the company it is certainly a bad idea to discriminate based on other criteria than productivity. But again, it is their money. Don't drag the government and the courts into it.

You could favor sheep for all I am concerned. Just don't ask me to pay for their veterinary expenses. It is none of my concern. It is a private matter. Keep it that way.