Unnecessary Change
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Conor asks:
What do you imagine would be a more radical change to our current marriage laws, allowing gays — 5 percent of the population, say — the ability to wed, or returning to a matchmaker system or a system in which it’s common for men to take multiple wives?
Well, since Conor asks, I would have to say that the former is a more radical change for a few reasons: it is entirely unprecedented (James Boswell’s fantasies about what adelphopoia represents notwithstanding), it quite plainly departs from any recognizable form of matrimony, and so it absolutely divorces marriage from procreation, which all of these other varieties of marriage not only include but make central to their understanding of marriage’s purpose. It might be that the more radical change is not necessarily the most socially destructive change (liberalized divorce laws are more modest, but almost certainly have far worse effects), but it is more vehemently opposed because of the degree to which it is proposing to change a fundamental institution. To address Conor’s other point regarding conservatism, the standard for the conservative case would have to be much higher than he has made it. When endorsing a change, particularly one this radical, a conservative would need to show not only that it does not do harm to the institution in question but also that it actually reinforces and reinvigorates the institution. Whether or not “gay marriage” harms the institution of marriage, it certainly does not strengthen it. It is therefore undesirable because it is unnecessary to the preservation of the relevant institution, and so the appropriate conservative view is to leave well enough alone.
If allowing that change means, as Andrew puts it, “accepting gay love and commitment as indistinguishable in moral worth and social status as straight love,” it is not going to happen for a very long time, if it ever will, because I think it is fair to say that opponents of “gay marriage” do not accept the two as indistinguishable and see no reason why they should. If that is what “gay marriage” requires, I see even less reason why conservatives should accept it. Indeed, that statement helps explain the reason why “gay marriage” is so strenuously opposed while there is no movement trying to overturn Lawrence: there is a vast difference between permitting something and being compelled to accept it as indistinguishable from the norm.
Incidentally, this is one reason why Newsweek’s articles on the subject and their attempt to fabricate a religious case for “gay marriage” were met with so many harsh critiques, including mine: it is one thing to say that there ought to be legal protections in a secular system for certain relationships, which might then be established through the legislative process (rather than by judicial ruling), and quite another to say that religious conservatives must concede that their understanding of their own sacraments and Scripture is somehow faulty because they refuse to modify their religious teachings to suit the fashions of the world. The attempt to distort Christian tradition to suit the cause of the moment and to pretend that fidelity to that tradition is actually betrayal of it, as Meacham attempted to do, is the sort of insulting and obnoxious tactic that not only fails to persuade but also makes opponents of cultural change even more resistant than they were. Meacham and Newsweek’s attempt to claim some religious sanction or authority for something that has none did achieve one thing: it served as a confirmation of the fears of religious conservatives in churches throughout the world that attempts to re-define marriage seem necessarily to go hand in hand with innovation and distortion of Christian teaching.
Circular reasoning. Same-sex marriage is outside your tradition of marriage, so therefore it doesn’t strengthen the institution. Good enough logic for the pulpit, I guess. Not good enough for a society based on liberty.
Personally, I’m not interested in convincing you of a thing. We have no common ground, no shared principles. You want God’s will evinced in law. I want the principles in the Constitution vindicated. And guess what? We’re going to win, much sooner than you expect. The opponents of gay marriage are hanging on by their fingernails to the current discriminatory regime. Young people want gay and straight people to be equal before the law, and it’s old folks especially who want to keep some Americans second-class citizens. Every day, more and more of you die and more and more of us become politically active.
Great post, Daniel.
“Personally, I’m not interested in convincing you of a thing.”
Evidently, none of your confreres is interested in this, either, which doesn’t bode well for a position that has lost every referendum held to date. Of course, you assume that there is no common ground because it pleases you to think so, and it allows you to play the part of the self-righteous foe of theocracy (or whatever it is you think I represent).
The argument from demographic trends is an interesting one, and it is a rather odd one to make in this case. Birth rates of relatively more socially conservative families tend to be higher than among their more liberal counterparts, and these families will tend to reproduce their values in their children, which would mean in another generation or two “we” will have greater numbers and “you” will be dying off. This is a rather stupid way of looking at things. It essentially admits that there is no argument worth making one way or the other and therefore we should trust in cultural trends driven by sheer numbers to decide the issue.
Permitting the state to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t marriage — allowing what many regard as a sacred institution to be subject to the various whims and decidedly non-holy concerns of thrice-divorced politicians — would appear to be a rather sacrilegious policy for conservatives to endorse.
Why, after all, should an institution valued by so many because of deeply held personal religious beliefs be subject to regulation by legislatures? If one church wishes to have a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple, while another church chooses not to, so be it; having the state intervene on behalf of one religious or secular conception of marriage over another — and choosing to grant or withhold the tax benefits that accompany it to placate one political constituency over another — is at odds with the tenets of a free society.
While it might not happen anytime soon, the ultimate goal should not be to deny gays the right to marriage and the secular benefits that come with it, but to prevent the state from regulating an institution that ought to be governed by churches, mosques and synagogues (and individual consenting adults).
“Birth rates of relatively more socially conservative families tend to be higher than among their more liberal counterparts…”
This is true, but polling on the question of gay marriage shows that youth are abandoning the doctrinally conservative position on this issue, even if those youth continue to self-identify with the religious tradition in which they were raised.
“It essentially admits that there is no argument worth making one way or the other…”
But this is quite correct. There *is* no argument worth making if the debate is between doctrinal religious conservatives and secular liberals. There is no common ground, because liberals (such as myself) do not recognize religious doctrine as authoritative. Liberals are more likely to be swayed by arguments that appear to be grounded in secular social science. Those who argue that gay marriage is pernicious to family structure and to society in general have produced no evidence to bolster their position. Unless new evidence comes along, conservatives have no argument against gay marriage other than the argument from religious doctrine. And that is not an argument worth making to those who consider religious doctrines irrelevant to the formation of law and social policy.
“If allowing that change means, as Andrew puts it, “accepting gay love and commitment as indistinguishable in moral worth and social status as straight love,†it is not going to happen for a very long time, if it ever will, because I think it is fair to say that opponents of “gay marriage†do not accept the two as indistinguishable and see no reason why they should.”
Well, at least you’re clear about what you believe. You’re certainly not clear about WHY you believe it, though.
A little challenge for you:
Please explain what the distinction in moral worth is between a man and a woman who love each other, compared to a woman and a woman who love each other.
And for the love of decent reasoning, please keep “ability to conceive” out of it. My mother had a hysterectomy; should she have been barred from marriage thereafter?
I have never seen a single reason on this point that made any sense at all. Neither has Andrew. We’d love to see one, then we might have some chance of being convinced.
I think Mithras’ point (in the first comment) is 100% wrong. The point is not that we (liberals) are not interested in convincing you (religious conservatives). On the contrary: you’re the ones with no interest in trying to convince us, or even trying to explain yourselves with reference to anything rational.
Also, errontius is exactly right to say, “And that is not an argument worth making to those who consider religious doctrines irrelevant to the formation of law and social policy.”
The weird thing is, Daniel, you appear to accept that religious doctrines are not enough to ground policy choices in almost every realm. You don’t ground your reactions to the recent events in Israel on explicit appeals to the scriptures, or anything else that rational people of all types can’t (theoretically) accept. The elites may not listen to you, or to anybody else … but insofar as your arguments make sense, that’s a failure on their part, a triumph of special interests or ideological blindness over rationality. With respect to issues like gay marriage, you don’t even try to make this type of argument.
Why not?
Whether something represents a radical change is something we have to determine by looking at our particular time and place, not just by looking at the complete history of all humans everywhere. Combining an ancient practice with modern practices and norms can be far more radical than inventing a new practice.
Polygamy is a perfect example. Throw it into a post-industrial democratic market economy with widespread fertility enhancement. One billionaire male could have nearly unlimited number of “wives” and children. This could have unpredictable consequences in a culture in which equality among men and between genders is basically assumed. Eventual war and revolution are not at all out of the question as a result of a modern Western country in the 21st century adopting widespread polygamy.
I understand you’re distinguishing between how radical something is and it’s potential for destruction. (I understand that you’re doing it even if I don’t understand why). On the other hand, which newspaper headline would surprise you more? “Gay marriage legally recognized” or “Polygamy legally recognized”? Given that the government merely declines to recognize gay marriages while it actively seeks out and interferes with polygamous marriages, gay marriage clearly represents a smaller change from the status quo of current American law than polygamy.
It’s also simply harder for me to imagine as a heterosexual who believes in monogamous marriage–I can imagine what it’s like to be attracted other men insofar as men are capable of judging each other aesthetically, insofar as men can empathize with women. I cannot imagine what it would be like to love more than one woman as a wife–it’s like trying to picture what it would be like to have one’s corpus callosum severed, and I’m not at all certain that the love practiced in polygamous societies is the same kind of thing as that practiced in monogamous societies,
Polygamy is further away from me both legally and cognitively, and seems more unpredictable in consequence than gay marriage. Is that not enough for me to say that polygamy is more radical than gay marriage?
It essentially admits that there is no argument worth making one way or the other and therefore we should trust in cultural trends driven by sheer numbers to decide the issue.
There may be arguments given by both sides, but they’re unlikely to persuade. The liberals may appeal to a liberal notion of reason to validate their arguments, but ultimately it boils down to conflicting goods, and how the use of the reproductive organs relate to those goods. While the early Church preached the moral truths contained in the Gospel, I think the emphasis was more on moral witness than on persuasion, especially because radical conversion requires grace in addition to the proclamation of truth.
The same young people who endorse SSM are themselves chasing after false loves, and in the long run society will be worse off through their choices, even if evidence based on various social indicators can be manufactured to prove the opposite. So long as we live in a centralized nation-state, further decline seems unavoidable.
What I see missing in the anti-marriage side is an understanding that marriage is not a religious institution. Anyone can get married without ever setting foot in a church, temple, or mosque. When Warren stated that Prop 8 was an assault on religious liberty or somesuch, he was echoing an assumption that you hear in the arguments against gay marriage, but that assumption is based on paranoid delusions. The government can’t and won’t force churches to marry people that the churches don’t want to marry.
“which might then be established through the legislative process (rather than by judicial ruling)”
This is an strange bit of flim-flam as well, and disappointing to see here. It’s the judicial branch’s job to strike down unconstitutional laws. And as our understanding of human nature evolves, so too does our understanding of how to apply our principles via the law evolve.
tedschan says, “The liberals may appeal to a liberal notion of reason to validate their arguments, but ultimately it boils down to conflicting goods, and how the use of the reproductive organs relate to those goods.”
(1) Why is it a “liberal notion of reason” (and thus unpersuasive to non-liberals, apparently) when it comes to arguments about gay marriage, but it’s just “reason” (something that conservatives and non-conservatives share in common) when it comes to arguments about economics or war or a thousand other issues?
(2) What “conflicting goods” do you have in mind? What is the conflict? How does recognizing the validity of a gay marriage harm a religious conservative (or ‘conflict with [his] values’)? And why is this harm different from the “harm” to a Roman Catholic inherent in recognizing the validity of a second marriage (where the first marriage ended in divorce, not annulment)?
Daniel, you don’t actually seem to be answering Conor’s question directly, about the change in current marriage laws. Nothing in current marriage laws requires or even indicates a preference for reproduction. Nothing in current marriage laws indicates a preference for religious over secular concepts of marriage. Liberal divorce laws, women’s suffrage, contraception of all kinds including the pill, equal rights for women, the new economic opportunities for women, the decline of religious institutions altogether, the rise of secular and non-Christian notions of religion – all of these have had a far greater effect on the actual practice of marriage than legalizing gay marriage would.
In fact, as a straight married man who has raised two children, I can’t see how gay marriage would in any way affect my own marriage. Whereas, all the other things I’ve listed about really do affect my marriage. As an institution, I simply fail to see how gay marriage weakens my marriage, or any straight person’s marriage. If anything it strengthens it, in the most basis sense that it proves that committed marriage relationships are desired, even by gay people.
I can certainly understand your religious objections to gay marriage, but that would only apply to your particular church sanctioning such things, not the legalization by the state of such marriages.
As marriage as evolved today in most of America – as a strictly personal intimate sexual bond between two people that in many, perhas even the majority of cases, has nothing to do with procreation, and which certainly does not require it – gay marriage actually doesn’t seem like much of a big deal to most of us. It’s certainly not traditional, but virtually nothing about secular marriage today is traditional, so I hardly see any reason to draw a line here.
It’s certainly true that there are forms of traditional marriage, such as polygamy, arranged marriage, and chattel slavery, which would be less of a departure from traditional marriage than gay marriage would be. But they would be a far greater departure from modern notions of marriage, and from modern notions of liberty itself, than gay marriage is. In fact, gay marriage to many people seems to be completely in line with the modern trends of marriage and secualism, and I think the evidence shows them to be correct in this.
Nobody is required to see gay marriage as equal to straight, or traditional marriage. No one is required to see blacks as equal to whites either. It’s only where the law is involved that we are required to see these things as equal. The law is not dictated by religious sensibility, but of course people with religious sensibilities do vote for our laws. The problem is, people with religious sensibilities have already utterly transformed marriage into its present secular state, and seem willing in the near future to allow gays to participate in this already transformed marriage insititution. So it’s not much of a stretch at all, from the present state of marriage. So basically, you’re wrong on that count.
conradg said: “as a strictly personal intimate sexual bond between two people that in many, perhas even the majority of cases, has nothing to do with procreation, and which certainly does not require it”
I don’t think this is how it’s usually viewed by people in my socioeconomic class. Rather, this describes where it’s at when they are girlfriend and boyfriend, typically for several years. Marriage moves it beyond an intimate sexual bond, and into something more, usually (as you pointed out) involving the intent to have children together. (It it were just strictly personal, marriage wouldn’t make sense – why all the fuss of having a public event with witnesses and so on? It’s about their social group as well, and as mentioned previously, usually has something to do with having children.)
Similarly, the argument from exceptions (some heterosexual couples don’t or can’t have children, therefore marriage, in terms of its social purpose, isn’t about having children) doesn’t work. Laws are meant to apply broadly, and there may be many specific cases that are exceptions to the law in terms of its implicit social purpose. That doesn’t change its implicit social purpose.
Friedersdorf is claiming that the same movement that pushed Christian adoption agencies out of business in Massachusetts and hounded the all-American Boy Scouts out of public life in some municipalities doesn’t want to radically change things. Why do some think him credible on this issue?
Gay advocates within the Culture11 comments have compared Rick Warren to a Klansman. Does this mean some think the full suppressive power of federal civil rights laws should be brought to bear on those who resist this cause? I see no reason to think not.
conradg: “Nothing in current marriage laws requires or even indicates a preference for reproduction.”
This is wrong, as impotence or sterility is grounds for annulment in many states, and in even more states when that defect is concealed.
Ugh, this is going to go away as an issue soon enough. But it really comes down to one thing, why does anyone care if two gay people get married. I had a civil marriage with my husband, he was married once before and I was catholic. The church wouldn’t allow us to marry. So what, I’ve been married for 23 years. Churches marry people all the time who get divorced. But in the end, if two gay people get married it does not affect my marriage. What affects my marriage? The willingness or unwillingness of two people to stay together. It does take work to stay together you know, hard work. If two gay people getting married hurts your marriage, you are either gay, or you aren’t paying enough attention to your own marriage!
Anthony,
There is nothing in marriage laws which either indicates or requires anything more than “an intimate sexual bond”. Our social circles may differ, but I know many long married couples who have no children, and no desire to have children. Likewise, I know of many marriages between partners who are clearly incapable of having children, in that the woman is post-menopausal at the time of marriage. I do not see calls for their marriages to be considered legally invalid. I’m not sure what the exact percentage is of childless marriages, but I would suspect it is quite high. Certainly many second or third marriages do not produce children, and yet the law places no limit on these marriages. So I stand by my claim that the general state of marriage in our day and age requires nothing more than an intimate sexual bond between two adults.
Kevinjjones,
“This is wrong, as impotence or sterility is grounds for annulment in many states, and in even more states when that defect is concealed.”
Certainly impotence or sterility is grounds for annulment if one of the parties has been defrauded and seeks an annulment because they desired children. But there is no basis for any court, legislature, or third party suing to have a marriage between two people annulled if they are not capable of having children. We allow any two adults of the opposite sex to marry if they are of sound mind. Are you suggesting that gay people are not of sound mind?
Kevinjjones,
Even if gay marriage would be legal, I think an annulment would be granted if someone concealed their actual sex, and deceived their partner into marrying them. Imagine two seemingly gay men, one of whom turns out to have been a woman after the ceremony is performed. The man would have a right to have the marriage annulled on that basis alone.
Also, it’s not actually so that gay people can’t have children. I know a lesbian couple who asked a married friend of mine to father a child of theirs, which they then legally adopted. Many lesbians use artificial insemination to have children. And many gay men adopt or inherit children from relatives. So it’s not as if being gay excludes a couple from becoming involved in the child-birthing and child-rearing process.
Also, it’s not actually so that gay people can’t have children.
Same-sex couples cannot have biological children with each other.
Marriage is much bigger than what the majority thinks of it. Our amazing Attorney General, Gerry Brown, is arguing that marriage for everyone is an inalienable right. He draws his conclusion from the California Supreme Court justices who discovered that fundamental right to marry. Now he is building on their decision. To paraphrase something he said, “moral reasons are helpful in deciding things, but morals lack power.” The law is more powerful than the mob’s reason to prevent gay marriage. Below is a link to Gerry Brown’s 111 page argument urging the California Supreme Court to void prop 8. He lays into it on pages 75-91.
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1642_prop_8_brief.pdf
Daniel,
I don’t know where you live or who you know, but you sound like someone who isn’t familiar with gay people in loving, stable, long-term relationships. I know several and I’m here to tell you there is nothing different about gay relationships as they exist in reality than straight relationships as they exist in reality. Personally I think this business about procreation being a component of marriage is quaint. When has procreation ever been related to marriage in any way other than some moral ideal (that was never attained)? A more real version of this claim is that marriage is intended to enforce monogamy (and over history just who is supposed to be monogamous has certainly changed), something which gay people have as much chance of achieving as anyone.
No, Daniel, as someone who actually knows a lot of gay people and sees the effect of their relationships on society, I have to disagree with you. If you want to strengthen the institution of marriage then you should aim for more honesty and candor on the part of all parties who discuss the subject, not make arbitrary exclusions based on imaginary propositions or some farcical morality that only exists to frame the arguments of those unwilling to confront reality.
The argument in favour of same-sex marriage has a practical and a moral basis.
The practical basis: in the long run, the attempt to fight same-sex marriage without overturning Lawrence leads to a fatal contradiction. In the past, Western societies repressed Gay men and Lesbians; for various reasons, that no longer exists as an option. But tolerating Gay men and Lesbians without accepting them as equals created, as it always creates, an intolerably unstable situation, for in our society, we condition responsibilities on rights, People without equal rights do not have equal responsibilities, and that always creates social dysfunction. In the case of the Gay community, marginalization resulted in promiscuity, which turned out to offer an effective way of spreading a disease we found we could not control.
I believe this balancing will inevitably take place; just as we ask mush from people to who have received much, we must inevitably expect less from those from whom we take much. And in the case of Gay men and Lesbians whom we prohibit from marrying, we deny social support for their pair bonding, something as basic and precious. And this brings us to the basic moral issue: to deny Gay men and Lesbians the supports opposite-sex couples take for granted, while expecting them to adhere to the standards of faithfulness we expect of opposite-sex couples, posits an inherent moral inequality. I believe that morality in the Western world, both in religious and secular terms, has moved steadily away from the notion of that kind of inequality, and necessarily so. I have seen nothing in this dispute, the weaknesses in the argument by Mr. Meacham notwithstanding, that have changed this opinion.
conradg, the large majority of people I know do not wait until marriage to form “an intimate sexual bondâ€. This happens well before. Nor do they wait until marriage to form a long-term, monogamous commitment – that also happens well before. I am talking about implicit social purposes or marriage, not explicit legal requirements (which, of course, are what is up for debate! otherwise, a pro-homosexual marriage position loses before the get go). Marriage for many people is a vehicle for raising a family, and not about having sex. You can argue that for many people it isn’t such a thing as a vehicle for raising children, but that doesn’t preclude it being such for many others, or preclude its most important social function being such.
As far as where society should go, it seems to me that rarefying marriage towards an explicit focus on raising a family makes more sense than making it simply about something like cohabitation … historically, of course, an intimate sexual bond -> children in almost all cases, and an intimate sexual bond was much more strongly prohibited outside of marriage. This is simply societies coming to terms with the meaning of highly effective, widely used contraceptives.
“purposes or marriage” -> “purpose of marriage”
“The attempt to distort Christian tradition to suit the cause of the moment….”
Fer instance… asserting that marriage is and always has been a sacrament? That kind of distortion???
If you think that sacrament is the wrong word for something established by God, I suppose that’s your call, but otherwise you have to be kidding. We Orthodox usually prefer the word mystery, but I was trying to use a word that most people would recognize and understand.
That it is even necessary to debate the nonsense of “gay marriage” shows how far our country has fallen. It is incompatible because homosexuality is an inherent act of selfishness and rebellion (against God and nature), that is utterly contrary to marriage.
As for polling of “young people”, the vast majority of those young people aren’t married and don’t yet have children. People’s tolerance for homosexuality (when they can quietly express their views in the polling booth) differs markedly once they have children who could be contemplated as being subjected to homosexual “marriage” as a norm (including, as Prop 8 advocates pointed out, in the public schools.)
The pro-homosexual movement characterizes as “liberty” and “equality” an effort that is simply an effort to use the law to create social revolution for the imposition of one set of moral norms on society. It also has no basis in “reason” or “logic” as its advocates arrogantly assert (much less in the Constitution, which was interpreted for centuries to the contrary of these advocates.) Rather it is simply about political conquest and appetites.
P.S. One does not have to view marriage as a “sacrament” (at least not in the RC sense) in order to agree with Daniel.
“but I was trying to use a word that most people would recognize and understand.”
Yeah, right.
You were trying to imbue marriage with a holy aspect, ignoring the real history of marriage in the West. If secular, non-religious contracts were good enough for the Romans and Christians for the first 1000 years, they ought to be good enough for you.
As for god establishing anything, I suppose one could argue that “god’s plan” calls for heterosexual pairing because humans pair bond (at least temporarily) that way and copulate that way. But some of us pair bond homosexually and have sex that way. Not “god’s plan”, eh? Whose plan, then?
“Same-sex couples cannot have biological children with each other.”
This is true of many straight couples as well. Until there are laws against IVF and other methods of reproduction there is no barrier to lesbian couples having children. And until there are laws against adoption, there is no barrier to male gay couples raising children, just as many straight couples do for various reasons, not necessarily even having to do with their inability to conceive.
1000 years of theology based on faulty observation of what is “natural”. Self-reinforcing prejudice, centuries of it. To what end? Squeezing humanity into the understanding of a handful of long-dead theologians.
Why?
“Marriage for many people is a vehicle for raising a family, and not about having sex. You can argue that for many people it isn’t such a thing as a vehicle for raising children, but that doesn’t preclude it being such for many others, or preclude its most important social function being such.”
You are of course right that many develop an intimate sexual bond before marriage. I certainly did. But marriage itself is not reserved only for this purpose. Certainly many people have different personal notions of what marriage is, and what the purpose of their own marriage is. Some people marry without any interest in an “intimate sexual bond”, they just want children, like Henry VIII. I don’t approve of that, but I wouldn’t outlaw it either. But that’s just the point. My notion of what I want my marriage to be about shouldn’t require me to outlaw or preclude other people’s notion of what their marriage is about. Not in a free, democratic society at least.
Many straight married couples even persue a swinger’s lifestyle, without monogamous requirements. That’s not my choice, but I wouldn’t outlaw it either. Adultery in traditional society was considered a sacrilege, and ruthlessly punished regardless of whether the spouse desired that result. In our age, many married people commit adultery and are forgiven, it often does lead to divorce, but just as often not. There is certainly no requirement that a marriage in which adultery has occured be dissolved by the state. Likewise, there is no requirement that marriages which do not produce children should be dissolved by the state.
So I don’t see how these arguments support the notion of banning same-sex marriages. Marriage can have many purposes, and while procreation is clearly one of them, it’s not necessary. All that is necessary in our culture is that two people decide to embark upon a loving, most often sexual commitment to one another. Often, as you say, this has already occurred before the marriage ceremony. So the marriage is a way of making this a legal bond recognized by the state, conferring legal protections and benefits to both parties.
To deny those protections and benefits to two people simply because they have a different sexual orientation seems incompatible with both the moral and legal principles of our culture. It is a clear case of sex discrimination, in that the same rights are not granted to me if I choose to marry a man rather than a woman, all else being equal. If my sexual orientation led me to choose to marry a man, it would in no way mean that I would be preventing other men from marrying a women and having children, nor would it lead me to marry a woman with whom I would have children, it would merely deprive my relationship with that man of the legal benefits and protections I would otherwise have in marrying a woman.
I’m with Daniel in considering marriage performed by religious ceremony to be a sacrament, but that is up to the Church in question as to what its requirements are, not the State. Some churches give their sacramental blessings to gay couples, and some do not. None of that has any bearing on whether gay marriage should be legalized by the State, in that the State is not capable of conferring the blessings which sanctify marriage, except in a theocracy. We do not, at least in principle, have a theocratic government, so this argument seems irrelevant to whether gay marriage should be legalized.
“And this brings us to the basic moral issue: to deny Gay men and Lesbians the supports opposite-sex couples take for granted, while expecting them to adhere to the standards of faithfulness we expect of opposite-sex couples, posits an inherent moral inequality.”
Agreed. True inequality should be recognized in law, or we are simply constructing illusions. Treating unequal things equally is unjust. The union of man and woman, by the complementary nature of their bodies, is different in kind from the parodic union of man and man or woman and woman in their acts contra naturam.
“I believe that morality in the Western world, both in religious and secular terms, has moved steadily away from the notion of that kind of inequality, and necessarily so.”
There is nothing necessary about this move, except insofar as it often piggybacks upon declining standards of morality and wisdom.
You have set up equality as a god-term. Equality is only one of many goods, and not usually the most important. In many cases, inequality is the right path.
I am amazed that AmConMag has attracted such commentary on this issue, and annoyed we have to waste so much time playing “one of these things is not like the other.”
I suppose these commenters are a sign of a broad audience.
conradg said: “Certainly many people have different personal notions of what marriage is, and what the purpose of their own marriage is.”
Right, but the whole point of my previous comment is that, if we are to start discussing how to change the definition of marriage, then we need to start talking about what marriage should be in terms of what is best for society.
Raising children isn’t just some use a few couples have – it is probably the mainstay of what marriage is about, historically and nowadays. The form and function of families in society arguably is one of the most important aspects of it, and so laws impinging on that should be treated carefully and weighed deliberately – this is about more than just personal, intimate sexual bonds.
Having said that, where I live (in Canada) same-sex marriage has been legal for a few years now. There are several obvious outcomes that I have noted:
1. Elite hostility to the (now changed) institution of marriage has diminished, as it now allows homosexuals to marry each other.
2. Public educational curricula have been modified to be more inclusive of homosexual marriage.
3. Not many homosexuals are getting married.
That’s about it. The change in law was of course handed down by courts instead of voted upon.
I have to weigh that statement against a mountain of evidence, including a huge amount of personal experience, that tells me nobody chooses to love a member of the same sex (nobody chooses to love a member of the opposites sex either, as far as I can tell). I have to weigh it against the utterly selfless, inspiring love I have personally encountered in people engaged in same-sex relationships. Someone simply asserting that they understand “nature” (strictly speaking, nothing contrary to the actual laws of nature can exist, at least not in real space) won’t do. Invoking the laws of the Creator as recorded in scripture will do, but only for those willing to actually grapple with what those laws actually say, and to whom (and under what circumstances) they apply.
First of all, you have no idea who, if anyone, has “political conquest” as a motive in this situation, and secondly, I find these references to “appetites” profoundly offensive. Human beings form families; that defines us.
Here we have the fundamental disconnect. I follow the logic that actions spring out of the basic nature of specific individuals, and that the fundamental equality of persons requires that we respect their relationships. Acts come way down the list for me. As for the repeated invocation of “nature”: nothing truly contrary to the laws of nature can exist in real space, and in fact the laws of nature limit language itself, so some things we cannot even describe.
Anthony,
“the whole point of my previous comment is that, if we are to start discussing how to change the definition of marriage, then we need to start talking about what marriage should be in terms of what is best for society”
That’s not really the issue in question, and I don’t think it ought to be. I’m not in favor of using marriage laws to somehow socially engineer the abstract “best for society”. Neither you nor I know what is best for society. We have trouble enough figuring out what is best for ourselves.
The issue is whether gay marriage really represents a serious departure from the current, present day practice of marriage, not from some idealized or past tradition of marriage that is no longer widely practiced as such or defined by law. I made the point, and I haven’t seen anyone challenge it, that the changes made to marriage of the last century or so – divorce, open pre-marital sexual relationships, effective birth control, the emancipation of women, sexual equality in the workforce and most everywhere, and many more factors – have so utterly transformed marriage as it exists today that allowing gays to marry hardly even matters anymore, if one is concered about preserving some ideal of “traditional marriage”.
I certainly agree that having children is one of the most important aspects of marriage, at least for those who wish to have children, and that preserving that is very important. I simply fail to see how gay marriage in anyway impinges on child-bearing, in that gay people are not going to start marrying straight people and having children if we forbid gay marriage. They will simply continue their current relationships without the protection of the law or the encouragement of society. It wouldn’t result in one less child being born, and in fact would probably result in more children being born (by lesbian couples) or adopted.
The far greater threat to procreative marriage is the large number of straight people who marry without any intention of having children. Gay couples do not influence those decisions in any way at all. If you really want to encourage married people to have children, or otherwise ensure that marriage is about procreation, you should advocate some kind of marriage law that would exclude childless couples. If that were enacted, I think gay people would feel less singled out for exclusion. But of course no such law would ever pass. People would consider the mere suggestion absurd, which is an indication that current marriage customs do not in any way fit the ideals you are promoting. Which is also why gay marriage would hardly be noticed, or have any significant affect on straight marriage, anymore than childless couples are considered some kind of scourge on the marriage scene.
conradg said: “Neither you nor I know what is best for society. We have trouble enough figuring out what is best for ourselves.”
I see, so we should let special interest groups push and pull at the fabric of society until it suits them, instead.
“the changes made to marriage of the last century or so – divorce, open pre-marital sexual relationships, effective birth control, the emancipation of women, sexual equality in the workforce and most everywhere, and many more factors – have so utterly transformed marriage”
I agree with this, as I’ve alluded to in my comments (ex. “This is simply societies coming to terms with the meaning of highly effective, widely used contraceptives.”). However …
“that allowing gays to marry hardly even matters anymore”
just doesn’t follow. Perhaps *relatively* it doesn’t make a big difference, but the debate about what marriage is, and what it ought to be, is important. If we decide that we want marriage to be “x”, and SSM furthers “not x”, then it matters.
“I simply fail to see how gay marriage in anyway impinges on child-bearing”
I have not argued that it does, except in so far as it furthers the transformation of marriage into an institution where bearing (and to an extent raising) children isn’t part of the meaning of that institution.
“The far greater threat to procreative marriage is the large number of straight people who marry without any intention of having children.”
Right, and this fact is used by people, such as yourself, as a lever to argue for homosexual marriage. To allow homosexual marriage *reinforces* this aspect, that’s the whole point.
“you should advocate some kind of marriage law that would exclude childless couples.”
That’s what I just suggested! (i.e., “As far as where society should go, it seems to me that rarefying marriage towards an explicit focus on raising a family makes more sense than making it simply about something like cohabitation[.]“) Obviously, redacting the status of people who are already married wouldn’t pass, but a forward looking change in the law is a different matter.
“But of course no such law would ever pass. People would consider the mere suggestion absurd, which is an indication that current marriage customs do not in any way fit the ideals you are promoting.”
Right, which is exactly what people would have said about SSM 20 years ago.
“Right, which is exactly what people would have said about SSM 20 years ago.”
Gay people were only halfway out of the closet 20 years ago.
Anyway, there’s a big difference between a movement to expand marriage rights to include the excluded, and getting a majority of people to agree to restricting their own currently-held marriage rights. Self-interest being what it is… well, good luck with the latter. The vast majority simply do not want outsiders (church or state) butting into their personal relationships.
I’m going to take a stab in the dark. I guess Anthony’s marriage only for raising children would include adoptive parents. (You never know, though, adoption being “contra naturam” and all.)
A further stab. Not applicable to gay couples.
Anthony,
I appreciate your honesty and consistency, but I can’t see how your position reflects the current state of marriage in our society, or demonstrates how gay marriage would alter that state.
“so we should let special interest groups push and pull at the fabric of society until it suits them, instead.”
Culture in a free and open society is just that – a collection of “special interest groups”, each competing with one another for cultural influence and custom. One cannot look at modern culture and not see how traditional “special interest groups” have been rapidly losing influence over the last century, while all sorts of other special interest groups have been gaining influence. This certainly hurts if you favor a certain kind of traditional ideal, but one can’t argue that we should not allow this to occur, unless you want to abandon a free and open society and instead institute a closed and authoritarian society. Is that what you are suggesting?
I’m not sure there’s any other way to prevent such changes as gay marriage from occurring. Look at the trends. As you admit, there have already been such profound changes to marriage due to the overall liberalization of society that traditional marriage for purely procreative purposes is no longer held to be sacrosanct. I know you think the notion that allowing gay marriage is a natural part of that modernizing process “just doesn’t follow”, but it’s certainly part of the overall trend, and we can’t ignore that. It’s not as if people are proposing gay marriage in the midst of some traditional culture. They are proposing it when traditional marriage has already been utterly transformed into a purely intimate sexual bond that is no longer considered inferior if it lacks children.
“the debate about what marriage is, and what it ought to be, is important. If we decide that we want marriage to be “xâ€, and SSM furthers “not xâ€, then it matters.”
The debate is certainly important for each individual, but we live in a society where the meaning of marriage is left to each couple to decide. We do not have marriage police monitoring our lives to see if we are living up to the standards this debate might wish them to. In light of that, in light of the incredibly lax standards we have come to accept for every aspect of marriage, from adultery to childlessness, it surely doesn’t seem to me that SSM is out of line with our present cultural norms. Whereas instituting the kind of traditional authoritarian position on marriage you are advocating seems utterly out of line with current culture.
“it [SSM] furthers the transformation of marriage into an institution where bearing (and to an extent raising) children isn’t part of the meaning of that institution.”
But as I’ve demonstrated, that has already happened. You can’t blame gays for something that straight people have already done to the meaning of marriage in droves. I guess you can argue that there’s an incremental movement further along these lines by adding SSM to the mix, but it’s a tiny addition to a fait accompli. There is simply NO movement in the culture at large that I know of to stigmatize or ban couples without children from marriage, and such a thing would be considered a completely unacceptable and radical transformation of our society that is completely at odds with the present culture.
“this fact is used by people, such as yourself, as a lever to argue for homosexual marriage. To allow homosexual marriage *reinforces* this aspect, that’s the whole point.”
Yes, that is exactly the point. It’s a remarkably effective lever in this argument, because hetersoexuals have already done what you fear homosexuals might subtly “influence” them to do. This seems completely unfair, to punish homosexuals for potentially “influencing” straights, while condoing straight couples for legitimizing something they have already accomplished throughout our culture. If you want to win this cultural war over marriage as a child-bearing institution, you will have to win over the vast number of straights who already condone and even encourage childless marriages.
“That’s what I just suggested! (i.e., “As far as where society should go, it seems to me that rarefying marriage towards an explicit focus on raising a family makes more sense than making it simply about something like cohabitation[.]“) Obviously, redacting the status of people who are already married wouldn’t pass, but a forward looking change in the law is a different matter.”
I appreciate your honesty in stating this, but it seems like a total fantasy in respect to our present culture. What exactly do you think the chances are of actually winning the general culture over to this viewpoint?
“Right, which is exactly what people would have said about SSM 20 years ago.”
Yes, but examine the trends of modern culture. They are heading in the liberalizing direction on virtually all counts, not in the direction of your own special interest group. That’s too bad for you, but unmistakable. The mere fact that acceptance of SSM has risen so dramatically in the last 20 years tells us that we are even further away from the kind of marriage consensus on procreation that you would like to see emerge. So far, in fact, that it appears to be nothing but nostalgia for a bygone era we can only idealize, rather than re-create.
Anthony
To an extent? Excuse me, but that seems completely absurd in terms of the practicalities. You only need one person to actually bear a child. In fact, you can only have one person bearing a child at one time; the book “The Mythical Man-Month” illustrates the indivisibility of certain tasks by pointing out that you cannot produce a baby in one month by putting nine women on the job. It takes another party to fertilize the egg, but that man need not know or have any involvement with the woman who bears the child. We need institutions because we raise our children, not because we need them to give birth.
I think we have gotten away from “procreative marriage”, if indeed we have done so, primarily because of the decline in infant mortality and consequent increase in population. But again, this in any case misses the point. Lesbian women can (and do) conceive, Gay men can (and do) donate sperm, and Gay couples can (and do) raise children.
conradg
Just to state this proposition shows its absurdity, as well as its unprecedented nature. How would you do this? Require every married couple that didn’t produce children within some specified period to divorce?
locutus: “How would you do this? Require every married couple that didn’t produce children within some specified period to divorce?”
I already addressed this (“Obviously, redacting the status of people who are already married wouldn’t pass, but a forward looking change in the law is a different matter.”). To say it another way, you wouldn’t retroactively affect anyone, but rather change the qualifications for entrance into marriage going forward.
conradg said “What exactly do you think the chances are of actually winning the general culture over to this viewpoint?”
I will be traveling shortly (to your beautiful country, if you are an American), and so will be brief.
I think many conservatives consistently underestimate or misunderstand the nature of the change occurring around them. The sputter and gesticulate approach to the latest “outrage” when, of course, most of it stems from a relatively logical movement of ideas, has been losing the social war for the last 50 years (and more). If you don’t grapple with the underlying motivations, logic, and beliefs in liberalism, say, then you are going to keep losing your social battles – again and again.
Therefore, if social conservatives are to start winning, they must go back to basics, and that means honest assessments of their own arguments. The results, I think, will in some ways not be conservative at all, but progressive in another direction from “progressives”. This means making what sound like shockingly absurd or radical propositions, but that come out of solid theoretical foundations with a different basis than liberalism, and then working slowly and steadily to bring them about.
If social conservatives wake up and realize the actual lay of the land, I think that they will have to realize that their excuses to deny homosexuals marriage are just that – ad hoc excuses that at best will delay the inevitable crushing theoretical ice of their opponents’ better thought out glaciers of social change (moving quicker than slower – I suppose).
If a core group of smart, young, talented conservatives were to get their wits about them, I think they could start moving to lay the groundwork for such a family-centric (i.e., about raising children) view of marriage, and forget about the homosexuals (which, as you rightly point out, are coming in the wake of other, more important changes to “marriage”). If they were to do such a thing, I think 15-25 years is a good rule of thumb for bringing about this sort of change.
Have a great week.
So… what will this Brave New Conservatism do about same-sex couples who HAVE CHILDREN? Whether from previous marriage, adoption, IVF, or surrogacy?
Will they be allowed to marry?
(The answer, of course, is “no”. Why? Just cuz.)