In Praise Of Inter-Species Marriage
The Pennsylvania legislature is now debating whether or not to legalize gay marriage. One hears the usual, the predictable arguments from both sides in this debate. But the other day I heard one argument from people opposing the right of gays to marry that had never occurred to me—the possibility that if we allow this to go forward in Pennsylvania it would put us on a slippery slope that could lead to legalizing inter-species marriage.
I like to think of myself as a pretty liberal guy when it comes to others’ personal relations. Inter-species marriage, though, hit a nerve. The sight of a beautiful June bride sharing a kiss at the altar with an orangutan, or the wedding night doings of a newly-minted groom with a muskrat, well, that slippery slope was disorienting.
But strangely, as I thought the matter through more carefully, a very different notion came to mind. In fact, I now believe we should give very serious consideration to legalizing inter-species marriages because they are not only already quite common, but are needed as a matter of simple equity.
Be honest. How many people do you know who like their pets more than their spouses? How many show greater affection to these other-specie individuals than the man or woman to whom they are formally wed? Do you think the woman who purrs at her cat while stroking behind its ears lovingly does that kind of thing with hubby? Do you think the guy who rolls around in the yard with Fido, sharing nips and growls, engages in that kind of affectionate play with his legal partner? If you love a pet that much, why not be able to legally tie the knot?
There’s also more than affection at stake here. A pet gets sick, who pays the vet? Your company health insurance policy? Medicare or Medicaid? And if you pass away before the little one, who gets the Social Security? Not the long-time pet true-companion of the deceased.
Look. I know legal inter-species marriage is not a popular cause, and the country may not be ready to go down this slope just yet. So let me offer this compromise: civil unions. And so as not offend the sensibilities of opponents too much (at least not at first], I also suggest that such unions be limited to creatures with four limbs or less.
14 Responses to “In Praise Of Inter-Species Marriage”
As soon as you come up with another species that can actually give consent, I'll discuss this. Until then, I'll consider it idiocy.
All that's needed among lefties is for the “right” (pun intended) person to act. Take Julia Butterfly Hill. It is hilarious but also fully comprehensible and believeable that someday she'd want to marry Luna the tree she adopted and named.
[chuckle]
What does Peter Singer have to say about this, and what about PETA, and what about, say, the Sierra Club on behalf of plant life?
Michael you really never heard this fear-tactic used by the anti-gay marriage crowd? I think someone hasn't been paying attention, Rick Santorum used it when he was still in the Senate representing Pennsylvania ironically enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy
“As soon as you come up with another species that can actually give consent, I'll discuss this. Until then, I'll consider it idiocy.”
Exactly!
Oh Michael. So much wrong here. I know I've had to say it to others regarding gay rights, but never to one of the mods. So here it is: people are actually different from animals. We can do lots of things they can't. Like sign marriage licences, and as Thurman said, give legal consent.
Since we're on a gayness-is-like-beastiality kick, anyone going to compare gays to NAMBLA? How about polygamous cults? That would be fun, totally original, and make just as much sense!
Is it just me, or do the previous comments indicate that their authors don't recognize satire when they see it? Sheesh.
Geg — Oh, the satire comes through loud and clear. It's just not funny.
Roro80 wrote “How about polygamous cults?”
Ok, we have enough cults. But, honestly when opponents of gay marriage drone on about how legalizing polygamy will be next, I find myself thinking that if it's between consenting adults, so what. The two key words are “consenting” and “adult.” NAMBLA and beastiality don't meet that standard. But, once that threshold is met….
You stay out of my bedroom and I'll stay out of yours.
tidbits — I actually agree with you entirely on that on principle, but I think it gets a lot more complicated when we move to a marriage of more than two people, simply because of the enormity of the laws that would have to change and be rethought for a good system to exist. For gay people to get married, all that would need to happen is to say that any two consenting adults can get married — all the structure, rules, and means of termination of said marriage are already firmly in place. For triads to be legally recognized would open a whole new can of worms — not morally, in my mind, but logistically. Kids, division of property, employer-paid health care, etc. It all needs rules that just don't exist and would be extremely hairy to comb through.
Of course, the real moral argument against polygamy is in its history. With a few exceptions (counterexample: early Inuit culture), polygamous societies are structured around men having multiple wives, who are rarely consenting, and rarely adult, and generally serve as baby makers and slaves to their husbands.
Roro80 – Thanks for the thoughtful response. Pushed to the logical limit, I would argue to get government out of the marriage business completely. Government has a need to identify households for tax and benefit purposes. Marriage, for millenia, was a religious rite (sacrament in Christian-speak). The government does not license or perform baptism, communion or last rites. Why should it license or perform marriage? Once people reach the age of majority (18), they should be able to go to whatever religious or social institution that will marry them and get married…or they can abide together without marriage, and the government need only recognize the “households” that are formed.
As to 'divorce” justifying marriage, I don't buy that excuse. Government already makes custody decisions, often involving multiple parties (ex's, step's, biological parent, psychological parent, grandparent, fit parent, unfit parent, married parents, unmarried parents, straight, gay and bi), and the government making financial allocations is also done whether persons are married or not (domestic partnership laws).
The only real interest the government has in marriage is the revenue collected from “selling” marriage licenses. You see, if we recognized that government has no business licensing, performing or regulating marriage, people (straight, gay or other) could marry at will in the religious or social institution of their choice without the gov't deciding whose marriage it will bless and whose it won't.
You talk about the logistics and how laws would have to change and how it would be difficult. My simplistic response would be that doing what's right isn't always easy, but sometimes it is necessary.
BTW, I've intentionally avoided the separation of church and state argument here: a) because I believe it is unnecessary to the point, and b) because I don't want to sound like a wing-nut whack job…though it could be an interesting take off on the discussion.
Your point about the need to enforce child abuse and sexual slavery laws is a constant, with or without polygamy. In fact, the old saw against gay marriage that it would lead to child predation? Pardon my saying so, but reading an advocate of gay marriage argue against polygamy because it might lead to child predation is a tad ironic. Not meaning to be offensive, just hoping you'll think about it.
tidbits — I think I did a poor job of distinguishing my positions from those points made by others, which I was siting, albethey unclearly. For the record, I agree almost completely with what you're saying.
Hopefully more clearly said: gay marriage is very low-hanging fruit from a policy standpoint. Just make a law that says it's ok for any two adults to marry, regardless of actual or perceived gender, and it's done. The only reason it couldn't be done right now *today* boils down almost entirely to bigotry, perhaps a quick redesign of marriage licences. For polygamous situations, not only will it be a much harder sell to the public, but there are a lot of other issues that need to be dealt with beforehand. This is not to say that it's not right to strive for perfect equality in marriage for three or more people who are _mutually_ committed to more than one person — I agree we should — but there are a vanishingly small number of actual triads (or larger) for whom this would be a very positive change, particularly for the amount of difficulty in implementing it. Again, I'm not saying that that should be a reason not to do it, just a reason why it will take a lot longer.
For your last point — of course! I am not arguing that the terrible history is a reason not to legalize it for all mutually consenting adults, I am merely saying that it's why, when the “slippery-slope” folks talk about polygamy, most people do think that the argument holds water.
My one point of contention is with the idea that the government shouldn't regulate marriage. First, if the government has no role in who can legally wed whom, all the good laws about who can and cannot do so disappear — age limits, coercion, etc. We know that churches have historically had little compunction about which couples they are willing to marry in terms of coerced or child marriages, or the bad type of polygamy. One of the main reasons gay people want to be able to get married is the list of responsibilities and rights that come along with it, and the governement does need a way to easily (because it's so common) indicate that these two otherwise unrelated people now need to be considered family in a legal way. That's called “marriage”.
Which brings me to my final point: There has been a word for this transition from “unrelated” to “family related” in a way that involves sex in every culture since the beginning of civilization. In English, that word is “marriage”. It doesn't belong to any particular religion, or to those who believe in God, or those who think it's a sacrament. Those people don't get ownership of that word. In fact, I'm getting married in less than two weeks. The Christians don't get to name what we're doing. We're getting married, and it will have nothing to do with them.
Roro80 – Though we may disagree about the sub-issue of government regulation of marriage, please know that I have great respect for your well thought out and articulated position both here and on many other posts.
Congratulations on your upcoming nuptials.
What a nice thing to read! Thanks — good discussion!
“How about polygamous cults?”
If it's between consenting adults, I don't care.