Another Analogy About Same-Sex Marriage

What Margaret Somerville said about same-sex marriage reminded me of something I heard about radical feminists who wanted equal rights for women in every way, even when it came to the right of going into the men's change room! This is where the ideas of separate-but-equal and different-but-equal seem to apply. Women are different-but-equal and as such should have the same rights as men to use the rest room assigned to their gender. If they were separate-but-equal, using Dr. Somerville's definition, they should be able to use either a men's or ladies' change room. I obviously, like most of society know that women should be classified as different-but-equal and not separate-but-equal.

Now as for same-sex marriages, should they be classified as separate-but-equal or different-but-equal? Well the more conservative religious and political parties don't want to give them either and would try and say they don't deserve any equal rights. For the sake of expediency in my argument I will not address such an archaic way of thinking. Obviously we want equal rights for all humanity. However, the question still persists: different-but-equal marriages (implying that they should have some sort of equivalent marriage just for homosexuals but don't call it marriage) or separate-but-equal (implying that they should be granted the right to have the exact same kind of marriage traditionally reserved for man and woman)? Dr. Somerville thinks the answer is different-but-equal. She thinks that "recognizing same-sex marriage would change [marriage's] inherent nature," the same way allowing females into a men's change room would inherently modify the men's change room into a gender-less change room. It's a good argument, one that might convince you that different-but-equal is the answer, if you agree that there would be some damage to marriage because of recognizing same-sex marriages. Dr. Somerville failed to argue any realistic damage that would be done. Instead she just says that, "The issue is whether society needs marriage to institutionalize the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman. I believe we do, and maintaining it should take priority." That's all fine and dandy that she has an opinion but she doesn't explain why the procreative relationship between a man and a woman is an inherent property of marriage? Is it because the dictionary [said] so?

Going back to my change room analogy, this inherent property of marriage - the procreative nature between a man and a woman, isn't really an inherent property the way gender is. Marriage will still be the uniting of two people that love each other regardless of the government’s decision to recognize same-sex marriages. Allowing a women into the men's change room would modify inherent properties because it would no longer really be a men's room, it becomes a gender-less change room. The men already using the change room would have to adjust because the modification of the change rooms inherent properties would actually have affected their right to a men's only room. Same-sex marriages will not have this impact upon traditional male and female couples. Just because they are recognized under the law will not change the way heterosexual people are married or make their marriages worth less. Therein lies the difference. Therein is the reason that similar-but-equal is the answer, and while Margaret's arguments may have been convincing it was the fact that she never concretely secured the most important variable, and that is whether or not the procreative relationship between a man and a woman is an inherent property of marriage.