Ratchet Marriage Down

Gay marriage. This subject has gotten to be a little prickly, eh?  I have to be careful with this one. So, first, before I go on, I'd like to state that I think there are good, decent and virtuous people on both sides of the argument with legitimate reasons for their positions. Now, as Barack and Lenin would say: "Forward".

The "Ratchet Effect," as coined by Robert Higgs, describes how the government uses crisis to expand the state. Once the crisis subsides, the government recedes, but never to the before-crisis level. Higgs primarily placed this squarely on defense spending, but it also characterizes government in general. Once government decides it should insert itself into an issue, it does so. Then when there are undesirable consequences, unintended or otherwise, it works to add more legislation to address those consequences.  It does this over and over again, never receding to the before-involvement level.

I would, and do, argue that this is how we got to the gay marriage issue.

It seems to me that the first question that should be answered is the pure libertarian one: why state involvement in marriage at all? What's the reason the state should be involved in marriage? Then, if it must be involved, why should the state recognize one relationship and not another? Isn't that bigoted discrimination? 

Well, I'll respond to the last one first, then move to the others. The answer is no, it's not. There are several types of strong relationships between adults (e.g. best friends, colleagues and co-workers, teammates, siblings, etc.) that are out of the sphere of the state – rightly so, I might add – but marriage isn't one of them. I and other conservatives argue that one of the primary responsibilities of the state is to help secure civilization so that it can be passed from one generation to the next. Securing the family is a key ingredient to help fulfill that responsibility. 

The difference between marriage, as traditionally defined, and these other relationships is that the significant consequence in heterosexual relationships is the bearing of children. The most important reason that conservatives provide for the state to recognize marriage, with which I wholeheartedly agree, "is to link erotic desire to the upbringing of the children it can produce." (Read this piece for elaboration.) This consequence is, obviously, not a result of any other kind of relationship, nor can any other relationship provide the same level of impact on society as this consequence. To say that the state should be involved in marriage for any other reason, I believe, is mistaken. And the extent to which the government is involved should be limited.

Which brings us to the ratchet. As with so many other issues, the nauseating, fetid proclivity of politicians to tinker and create new unnecessary legislation, so that they may appear like they're "doing something" for the folks back home, results in the rest of us managing their unintended consequences. One of the chief arguments for gay marriage is such unintended consequences. The extensive list of benefits that are only available to married couples enforces the pro-gay marriage argument, because these laws are either unnecessary or should be applied to all, and if they're not, they are, indeed, discriminatory. (What does limiting visitation rights to immediate family (e.g. a spouse) in a jail, have to do with raising children?)

Now we find ourselves in the position of re-defining a structural civilizing institution that's been around since the dawn of time, because of the government's brilliance in installing ridiculous discriminatory laws that have no bearing on marriage at all.  It seems to me that most – if not all – pro-gay marriage arguments can be defused by ratcheting down all of the discriminatory laws to the pre-government involvement level. If it doesn't directly affect procreation, repeal it. Ratchet marriage down.