"California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally." That's what Judge Vaughn Walker wrote as he overturned Proposition 8. With that, he proclaimed that same-sex couples could no longer be banned from marrying. I wonder whether he also made the case against privileging married people over singles.
Marital privilege is a matter of giving benefits, rights, and privileges to some people rather than others because some are married and others are not. The key criterion and the sole criterion is legal marriage. It doesn't matter whether yours is a same-sex marriage or not. It doesn't matter if your marriage includes kids or not. We're not talking about caring for people -- kids or not -- who cannot care for themselves. We're just talking marriage.
I. The Ruling Extends Marital Privilege to Same-Sex Couples, But It Allows Discrimination Against Single People to Continue
Judge Walker ruled that you shouldn't have to be a certain kind of couple in order to have access to the many benefits that legal marriage bestows. But if "California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally," then why should you have to be part of any kind of couple to qualify? Why should California (or any other state or the federal government) continue to treat single people as second-class citizens?
Consider, for example, these excerpts from point #36 (on p. 68) of the ruling:
36. States and the federal government channel benefits, rights and responsibilities through marital status...a. Specific tangible economic harms flow from being unable to marry, including lack of access to health insurance and other employment benefits, higher income taxes and taxes on domestic partner benefits
b. the Social Security Act had 'a very distinct marital advantage for those who were married couples as compared to either single individuals or unmarried couples'
c. Research identified 'a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions...in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges.'
My question is this: Why should coupled people, but not single people, have greater access to health insurance, employment benefits, or anything else simply because they are coupled? Why is it that single people, who make the same payments into Social Security as their married colleagues, cannot then leave their benefits to others? Why can't other people will their Social Security benefits to single people? Why should 1,138 federal provisions single out married people for special status?
Why can't all citizens be equal under the law?
II. The Ruling Condemns Legislation Based on Stereotypes and Private Moral Views, But Perpetuates Stereotypes and Private Moral Views in which Married People are Regarded as Superior to Single People
Judge Walker said that the Prop 8 proponents were making arguments based on stereotypes and that "no evidence supports these stereotypes." He insisted that "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples is not a proper basis for legislation."
Fine. I agree. Prejudice and private moral views should not be the grounds for legislation. But I think that the 136-page ruling also includes a number of private moral views in which married people are seen as superior to single people. I think it includes stereotypes of single people and those stereotypes are not true, either.
The Judge maintained that when same-sex couples have access only to domestic partnerships and not to marriage, they are seen and treated as inferior to married couples. That's not fair. But married people are also viewed as superior to single people. (Lots of data document that prejudice.) The ruling lets married people continue to be treated better than single people. That's not fair, either. As noted in the ruling (p. 85, #58f), "Laws are perhaps the strongest of social structures that uphold and enforce stigma."
Here are some of the matrimaniacal claims quoted in the ruling.
From p. 81, on why marriage is better than domestic partnerships (quote is from Peplau):
"I have great confidence that some of the things that come from marriage, believing that you are part of the first class kind of relationship in this country, that you are...in the status of relationships that this society most values, most esteems, considers the most legitimate and the most appropriate, undoubtedly has benefits that are not part of domestic partnerships."
On the same topic (marriage vs. domestic partnerships), p. 82, quoting Perry (a plaintiff):
"When you are married, 'you are honored and respected by your family.'"
On p. 79, #50b lists some of the benefits reported by same-sex couples in Massachusetts. They include
"more acceptance from extended family, less worry over legal problems, greater access to health benefits and benefits for their children."
What legal problems do single people have to worry about? Have you been following the same-sex marriage debate? Then you know the answers. To have a partner granted hospital visitation rights, or power of attorney, or any of a long list of other accommodations that are part of the marital bundle (at no extra charge), GLBT individuals need to pay for the relevant legal documents and worry about whether all eventualities are covered. Well, the same is true of single people. If they want, say, a friend to have hospital visitation rights or power of attorney or anything else, they, too, need to pay for the relevant legal documents and worry about whether all eventualities are covered.
III. Really? Science Shows that Married People Are Healthier and Happier, and their Kids Are Better Off? There's Truthiness in those Claims
Look at p. 69, #38, and you will find claims such as these:
Married people "are physically healthier. They tend to live longer. They engage in fewer risky behaviors...[They are] less likely to have psychological distress" than people who are not married.
This is, indeed, the conventional wisdom, and for years, I've been trying to explain what's wrong with it. I'll summarize the basics here, then refer you to more detailed discussions of the scientific reasoning and critiques of individual studies and claims.
Claims that married people are better than unmarried people are typically based on studies in which people who are currently married are compared to people who are currently not married. So if you look at people who are currently married, you may find, in some studies, that they are healthier or happier or experiencing less distress than people who are, say, divorced or widowed. Now here's where the truthiness comes in. The implication that is drawn from those studies is that if you were to get married, you would become healthier or happier or less distressed, too. But the studies do not compare everyone who ever got married to everyone else. Instead, they remove from the married group all of those people (more than 40%) who got married, hated it, and then got divorced. So what these studies really show is this: If you take all of the people who ever got married and remove from that group more than 40% of them who later got unmarried, then the people who are left look better than the others. (Sometimes.) Oh, and when you compare the currently married to the people who have always been single, include all of the single people. Don't remove the 40% or so who are least happy with their single life.
There's much more to my critique of the claims about the supposed superiority of married people. See especially Chapter 2 of Singled Out. There's an excerpt here. The misrepresentations about the children of married couples are critiqued in Chapter 9 of Singled Out.
Critiques of relevant studies that were published after Singled Out was in print are in Single with Attitude, in the section called "If marriage were a drug, the FDA would not approve it." I posted another critique, with lots of relevant links, here at the Huffington Post.
Here are some critiques of specific studies and claims:
Judge Walker's ruling can stand without the misleading scientific claims.
IV. Bottom Line
Let me be clear. I don't think same-sex couples should be excluded from the treasure trove of rights, benefits, and privileges currently accorded only to married heterosexual couples. But I don't think single people should be excluded, either. Remember, the ruling is not about caring for children or any other dependents who cannot care for themselves. Whether care-givers should have special considerations is a separate issue. My issue is marital status. That status should not divide citizens into a privileged class and an inferior class. We should all be equal under the law.
[Note: I'm now blogging at my personal blog, Bella DePaulo's blog. I also continue to write the Living Single blog for Psychology Today.]
Rabbi Michael Lerner: Why Jews Should Rejoice at the Overturning of Prop 8
The rights of homosexuals are supported by an overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community. That support is not only based on a memory of shared victimhood, but also on the core values of our own Jewish tradition.
Gay marriage: Why Judge Walker got Proposition 8 ruling wrong
Long road ahead for Prop. 8 court case
Prop. 8 ruling based on 'overwhelming evidence'
VIDEO: Prop. 8 ruling puts NOM into a frenzy
Shurtleff: California judge should issue stay with Prop 8 ruling
Public reaction to Prop. 8 ruling
Ecstatic reactions to Prop. 8 ruling in West Hollywood
I am a heterosexual, monogamous woman. I have a partner, but we don't want to get married. I resent the undue privilege marriage afford to the married, socially, legally, medically, and financially. There is NO reason one's marital status should determine access to health insurance. There is NO reason I should be denied the very dear benefit of adding a next-of-kin to my employer-provided coverage just because I am unmarried. Why can't I add a friend? Or my mother? After all, the mother-child relationship is, for 99% of people, the most closely-related and deeply bonded relationship in life.
Marriage is a sham. Abolish it.
There are a lot of extra responsibilities a single person can take on, which will also get you extra social support: buying a house; adopting a child; becoming a caretaker for an elderly relative; forming a neighborhood blockwatch. If you don't take on extra responsibilities, you don't get extra benefits.
What extra social support is available to a single person who buys a house?
Your example about hospital visitation exists to protect patients - an incapacitated person cannot verify to the hospital that the person trying to visit is really a friend or significant other, while a marriage can be verified. Hence the extra paperwork.
I agree that it's not fair for society to view married couples as legitimate, and unmarried couples as anything but. I also agree that the studies you mentioned are flawed. trying to equate this unfairness with things like Prop 8 is just crazy, and you haven't actually pointed out any laws that give married people an advantage.
I think that if you want to make a difference here, you'll need some stronger examples, and don't attach this to other issues. Personally, despite the trouble my being in an unmarried relationship has caused me, there's nothing that could convince me to get married - too many disadvantages, both personal and
The California ruling does not say that the state cannot treat different groups differently, it says they cannot treat arbitrarily treat them differently. It is central to the argument that marriage provides protection for children, but it does so in both the same-sex and opposite-sex cases. And it reached that conclusion based on the evidence prevented by expert witnessed on both sides (although one side's chosen experts apparently were clowns).
That is what would have to be matched to make marriage benefits on par with the case of discriminating against same-sex couples.
“A right delayed is a right denied”.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
From 'The Limited Government Case against Gay Marriage' at http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2010/08/repost-whats-in-it-for-us-limited.html :
...Before considering the question of gay marriage, a more fundamental question should be considered: Why marriage at all? In the United States, marriage is a tri-party legal agreement. The first two parties, husband and wife, are obvious. The third party is the state/community that acknowledges a marriage. Male and female couples petition the state –and more generally, their community– to recognize their marriage. If it was just a simple relationship amongst consenting adults, the community would have no need –and more importantly no business– acknowledging the relationship...
...Gay couples asking the community to recognize their relationships have a responsibility to address the question: ‘In return for the community’s recognition, what will you do for the state that justifies more government?’...
...The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail.