Mr. Santorum, speaking with an adversarial group in New Hampshire, took the anti-gay marriage argument in a typically (for him) ridiculous direction the other day. "So what's okay?" he asked (I am paraphrasing). "What about three people --what about polygamy? Is that okay? How about man on dog? Where do you draw the line?"
In trying to fit his particular bias into a reductio ad absurdium argument, he misses the entire point: Okay, say that no, a polygamous marriage is not okay. That has no effect on the argument in favor of gay marriage. Polygamy is not okay, nor is polyandry (assuming we decide so); but they are not okay for anybody: if you allow three-person marriages in the case of two men and a woman, say, but not two women and a man, you are then in the place we find ourselves now.
The point is that the US government privileges certain people by allowing them special rights and privileges; these rights and privileges have real, serious, and lasting effects on the people so favored. If you are going to do this, then equity requires that the same rights and privileges be extended to everyone --you cannot pick and choose.
Here's how this works: if two people can file a joint tax return, then any two people ought to be able to do so, not just two of whom you happen to approve. If my spouse can be covered by my health insurance policy, and can inherit my property by operation of law, and my surviving spouse can enjoy my social security benefits, by what right do you tell me who my spouse has to be? Some years ago, states took it upon themselves to deny me the benefits of marriage to some women, but not to others: that is an impermissible intrusion into my private affairs, on one hand, and disadvantages me socially and economically in comparison with others, on no reasonable basis. This is well settled.
If you wish to do away with the joint federal tax return, fine: we will all be treated equally as a result, in taxation, and nobody can complain. If you want to change the laws of inheritance, etc, do so --but don't create separate classes of benefits for some people that others cannot enjoy.
The point, again, is simple: we don't care how you define "marriage." But you cannot define it in an exclusionary way and then privilege "marriage" in the legal system.
Maybe the government --all governments, at whatever level-- should just get out of the marriage business. Drop the concept from our laws, and gays won't have any complaints.
And if you still want to keep three people from living in a sinful menage a trois, go ahead and try.
