[Note: A 2021 op-ed piece looks back at the country's attitude towards gay marriage at the time this was written.]
Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.
Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.
Now we are likely to see it in action again as we rush to protect the institution of marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act. This law, which provides no incentive to get or stay married, is somehow supposed to strengthen marriage. Ironically, it is likely to have the opposite effect as corporations work around the ban on same-sex marriages by offering domestic partner benefits, which have become quite common as companies work to recruit and retain homosexual employees. Under such programs, the live-in partner receives the same health insurance, pension and other benefits traditionally offered only to spouses. Many of Ohio’s largest employers already have such programs in place.
However, in an effort to avoid discrimination, many of these programs include both homosexual and heterosexual couples since employers do not want to be in the business of asking about sexual orientation. Thus, a man and a woman no longer need to commit to marriage in order to receive the benefits previously available only to legally-recognized spouses.
Suddenly, shacking up brings all the benefits of marriage without its legal pitfalls. Couples can live together, sleep together and share in the company retirement plan without worrying about divorce, alimony or the spouse’s credit card debts. Under such no-lose circumstances, why not simply live together for benefit purposes, even if you’re not sure you really want to commit for a lifetime. If it falls apart in a year or two, no harm done.
That is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, marriage risks becoming a quaint custom like formal business attire – sure it looks good, but a little too restricting. And just like our wardrobes, our relationships become a casual matter of convenience.
None of this would be an issue if homosexuals were allowed to formalize their relationships with the same legal commitments as heterosexuals. We would reduce both gay and straight partnerships of convenience, which is certainly in society’s long-term interest. But in our headlong rush to sweep homosexuality under the rug, we are willing to undermine the very thing we seek to protect.
Of course, permitting same-sex marriages will not strengthen our current institution of marriage. But outlawing it risks weakening it. As much as some may decry it, we live in changing times. Homosexuality is becoming much more ingrained in our culture. We can choose to invite gays to share in the customs and institutions that have served our society well for hundreds of years. Or we can shut them out and allow an alternate culture to develop where commitment is but a fleeting concept. That is a culture war we should avoid at all cost.
