Should Heterosexuals Boycott Marriage

Deontological theories of ethics focus on the moral rightness of action as an end in itself.5  This approach would tend to counsel toward exit.6  There is something aesthetically abhorrent in accepting the benefits invidiously denied others, regardless of whether declining the benefit makes a difference in real-world conditions.  We wouldn’t drink at a whites- only fountain even if no one else was around to see.

In contrast, consequentialist rationales attend to the consequences that flow from action.   This is sometimes categorized as a “teleological” (or end-driven) mode of assessment.  Teleological views could also encompass – but need not be limited to – utilitarianism, where the desired end is creating a better state of the world or achieving human happiness.  Here, cost/benefit analysis of the effects of a decision would be the central concern.7

From one perspective, individual action in large groups is rarely
likely to affect change.  This is the lesson of the voter’s paradox.  But individuals’ voices can persuade others and individuals’ exiting can lead to cascade effects of exodus (thus the “tipping” effect).  To assess the efficacy of voice, it is also crucial to realistically evaluate how much time you are likely to give to the cause of change. Discrimination against gays may be invidious, but it is unrealisticto spend all of your time working on change.  A totalizing commitment might be very effective, but most of us are only going to spend a small part of our lives on this issue.  A consequentialist should compare the impact of exit versus the impact of realistic
voice.

Disgorgement then requires people to monetize those benefits – to assign dollar values even to intangible advantages.  What would you be willing to pay to retain the right to marry the person you love, if someone threatened to deprive you of it?  How do you value the ability to hold hands or kiss on the street without threat of being beaten (or fired from your job)?  If 3% of the people who are otherwise qualified for these benefits are invidiously denied them,11 you should think about disgorging at a minimum 3% of this value in some form of advocacy or compensation.

In 2000 after California’s Proposition 22 against gay marriage was adopted, Eric Rofes, a professor of education at Humboldt State University, expressly called upon justice-minded heterosexual couples to boycott marriage until the institution is democratized.  His manifesto pulls no punches:
During a period when same-sex couples cannot marry, the taking of such vows by mixed-sex couples will increasingly be named for what it is: an act of willful participation in an institution that is neither democratic nor open to all. In the year 2000, heterosexuals getting married parallels Christians joining a club that excludes Jews, men working as partners in a law firm that has no female partners, or whites supporting the flying of the Confederate flag over public buildings intended to serve people of all races. No matter how one wishes to frame them, such choices are inherently ethical choices: participation in rituals and institutions that exclude sectors of society puts you on the side of discrimination and oppression.  [It may be time] for true heterosexual allies to say NO to marriage until all people have equal access. . .29

Gay and lesbian friends may not express them, but they will almost surely harbor a mixture of emotions – ranging from joy to deep ambivalence to pain and outright anger – when invited to a wedding.  We can’t imagine a priest’s semi-rhetorical question,
“does anyone know a reason why these two may not be married?” actually eliciting this response: “because this rite is invidiously denied same-sex couples.”  When asked to “speak now or forever hold your peace,” most hold their peace.  But that doesn’t mean they aren’t thinking about discrimination