Ramblings of Tungsten

It seems there is some kind of misconception among a great a number of people that the number or integrity of marriages is dictated by what I can only perceive as a Law of Conservation of Marriage. Similar to, but less well defined than, the Law of Conservation of Matter, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed so there is a finite amount of matter out there that to change. So, with the Law of Conservation of Marriage it stands to reason (or the argument seems to be) that there are a finite number of marriages that cannot be created or destroyed only changed or transferred. For example, if a gay couple was to marry then a straight couple would either choose not to marry or perhaps divorce to make room for the new marriage but civil unions are in a separate yet equal system outside of marriage and thus not affected by the Law of Conservation of Marriage. In fact, it seems that civil unions are subject to no law of conservation and can be created and destroyed at will, which is why it stands to reason that there is no movement to protect their numbers.

This concept of a finite number of marriages being continuously transferred through time would explain the language used by those in support of the current anti-gay marriage proposition (Proposition 8) on the ballet. This language includes terms like “protect marriage” and “restore marriage” as if it is in limited supply.

My problems with this particular rhetoric are as follows:

• Marriage is an abstract concept and not finite so it does not need to be dolled out in limited supplies rendering the Law of Conservation of Marriage obsolete. So any couple wanting to be recognized as married should be able to do so
• In fact marriage, as far as the state is concerned, is just a contract and there is a limitless supply of those
• The same people that argue against gay marriage are often doing a fine job of screwing up their own marriages so why not let the gay community have the same opportunity to screw up their marriages
• If those opposed feel that gay marriages somehow devalues their own marriage then they have much bigger problems with their own marriage and shouldn’t worry about others
• Separate but equal is not an argument
• Like I noted above, the whole argument is semantic because marriage in the eyes of the state is a contract between consenting adults. Anything beyond that is mostly an issue for religion or the couple in question to sort out apart from the government. And, again, since separate is not equal then any consenting adults should be allowed to marry
• Most people do not support gay marriage also do not support the government putting regulations in place that affect their lives but they are more then willing to put a regulation in place that affects other peoples’ lives, which I find painfully hypocritical

As someone who is on my way to the altar, I personally find the institution lacking in that it is not all inclusive and in so much as it is used as a tool of repression it is, in fact, diminished. I hope that one day the stain of repression will be washed away from the institution of marriage not only for those seeking to enter into it but also so that through my own marriage I will no longer feel divided from a group of my fellow citizens.