Why Iowa is already protecting marriage

When discussing the weak arguments against same sex marriage, opponents often point to the fact that in countries that do support same sex marriage, the number of heterosexual couples that are cohabitating but not married increased. They make the weak argument that this was caused by same sex marriage.

In essence, they see a relationship between events X and Y, and therefore X causes Y. The argument is that because same sex marriage was allowed, that led to more heterosexual couples eschewing marriage, so X causes Y. Of course, they never give an explanation of what mechanism two guys getting married may cause to a man and a woman down the street not to get married.

I will give you a detailed explanation of that mechanism.

In a relationship between X and Y, there are three possible reasons for it: X causes Y, Y causes X, or some other factor causes X and Y. Indeed, in this case, some other factor is causing both.

We're actually starting to see the effects of it in our country, even though in same sex marriage is illegal in all but a handful of states. You see, no country or state merely wakes up one day and says "Oh, let's allow same sex marriage." It's typically a long drawn out process. First, they start realizing gays are people too and start to give them equal protections. Then they realize same sex couples are people too and they should deserve rights too. But not marriage. So they start to hand them rights piecemeal, say the right to see their partner in the hospital. And then slowly they add in more rights after that. And maybe after some long drawn out period, same sex marriage.

And therein lies the problem. Essentially, they start to develop this "marriage lite". Most places that do this reserve that right only to same sex couples. But sometimes not. But some of the rights that were traditionally granted only to married couples may be opened up to just anyone, for fear of a right-wing backlash that the government might be favoring gay people, or perhaps not to be in violation of the Defense of (inequal) Marriage Act. For example, the FDIC recently revised their rules that trust insurance be only for "qualifying" family members (which included spouses). To open that insurance to same sex partners, they had to open it to anyone a person designates. Another instance of "marriage lite" was created.

And eventually, this "marriage lite" gets extended to heterosexual couples. And if heterosexuals can have many of the rights of marriage without marriage, many will indeed take it.

Now say you have a case like Iowa. Same sex couples in Iowa previously had almost no rights. They were for most purposes "strangers under the law." Then the courts came in and decided they could get married. They never had time to create a "marriage lite" in Iowa. If straight couples want the rights of marriage, they have to get married. End of story.

Now many would argue this was disruptive, that it wasn't through the legislature and it wasn't the will of the people. But there's a huge benefit to it too: There's nothing to diminish heterosexual marriage either. Had they gone through the legislature, they probably would have needed to create this "marriage lite" and have the same problems the other states do.

My point being that same sex marriage doesn't diminish heterosexual marriage. Treating same sex couples as less than equal does. Same sex marriage isn't even in the equation. In fact, the process of creating a "marriage lite" is what does it. Same sex marriage merely often comes after.

So if you want to "protect marriage", don't treat anyone as less that equal. If you do, we are all harmed.