Gay marriage. It's simple. And complicated.

New bit: Some time after I first wrote this in July 2011, I saw a gay person (I forget who) write something to the effect that it shouldn't be "gay marriage," it should be equal marriage or just marriage. After all, he pointed out, when he parks his car, he doesn't "gay park his car", and when he goes goes to the restaurant, he doesn't "gay go to the restaurant." A totally fair point, and wonderfully funnily put, and I now use the term "equal marriage" for clarity in the context of the debate and just "marriage" if such contextual clarity isn't necessary.  While acknowledging that error, I'm nevertheless leaving the post as it is as a historical record of my ignorance at the time. And out of laziness. 

***   

A couple of weeks ago the great state of New York authorised gay marriage, and this weekend gay and lesbian couples began registering to marry and actually marrying under this new dispensation.  Good for New York, good for America, and good for and congratulations to all the happy couples.  For me, it’s simple: we’re all equal.  Gay and straight, men and women, black and white, and all human others and in-betweeners; we’re all equal and whatever is right for one lot to do is right for anyone else to do too.  Although, I must admit, I always wondered about the Gay Olympics.  I mean, if gay people want to have their own Olympics, fine.  But why?  They’re gay, they’re not disabled.  Martina Navratilova didn’t need a Gay Wimbledon.  Although, on second thoughts, it might have helped Tim Henman.  But I digress.

For me, though, it’s complicated.  I’m one half, some would say not necessarily the better half, of a heterosexual couple of some 15 years standing.  To all intents and purposes we’re married, except we’re not.  The reasons we’re not?  First, neither of us is religious and so we can’t very well do it in front of or for God (or, even if I was religious, I’d be like, dude, you want us to get married?  You need to get other shit sorted out before worrying about that.)  Second, neither of us believes the state has any right to nose into our personal lives (or anyone else’s, for that matter), and our relationship is indeed personal.  The state has no right to approve it, or disapprove of it, allow it, or ban it.  It’s private.  It’s ours, no one else’s. 

A couple of qualifications here.  First, these are our personal opinions and if others disagree and want to get married, church or registry office or both, then obviously that’s great.  Indeed, paaaaaarty!  Second, marrying a partner who is a non-citizen so they can stay in the country is obviously a good idea for practical reasons.  Third, and most salient here, I can hear many gay people and many of their supporters saying, well, all that’s easy enough for you to say—you have the luxury of no one questioning the validity or indeed the morality of your hetero relationship—while for gay people it’s crucial, after so many centuries, indeed millennia, of repression and oppression, to receive acknowledgement of their equality as subjects of the state (the churches, certainly some of them, may need a little more time yet.... *For the term “subject” as used here, see below).  Yes, true, and for that reason I’m glad for New York, America, the aforementioned couples, and all gay people, and all of us actually, whether you like it or not, that the law has changed.  I hope it changes in more states and countries.  May such laws in fact arrive soon in Iran and Saudi Arabia and make such countries rather more relaxed and cool than they currently are.  And, if invited I’ll certainly come along to the weddings.  As I say, paaaaarty!  

But here’s why it’s complicated for me.  For the very same reason that the state has no business approving my marriage, it has no business approving gay people’s marriages.  And it has no business approving anyone’s marriage precisely because it has no business disapproving anyone’s marriage.  Acknowledging the state’s power to approve your marriage, whoever you are, is in effect acknowledging the state’s power to disapprove it as well.  At the very least, it acknowledges the idea that the state has some sort of authority over the personal relationships of individuals.  And that always carries the potential for pernicious regulation, such as forbidding certain kinds of relationships and even possibly punishing people for engaging in them.  Indeed, as long as we think the state automatically in all cases has the right to approve (and therefore disapprove) our relationships, we are * subjects of the state, subject to its whimsy at best and its bigotry at worst.  Better to be citizens and make the state the subject of its people and their choices, not the other way around.  If you want a church or the state to acknowledge your marriage in some ceremonial fashion: great, choose to do so and enjoy your big day.  But it’ll be everyone’s big day, nothing less in fact than a big day in the history of freedom and equality, when gay couples can choose to think and say with equal conviction and confidence as straight couples: we’re not going to get married because the state has no business nosing into our personal relationship.  The state has no right to approve it, or disapprove of it, allow it, or ban it.  It’s private.  It’s ours, no one else’s.