I like Ross Douthat. A lot. I started reading him when he was at The Atlantic, and was instantly hooked. He is without a doubt one of the most reasonable conservatives I have read.
While I was initially disappointed by his recent New York Times column on gay marriage, I’ve moved on to simply being confused.
I don’t think I’m the only one.
Adam Serwer at The American Prospect suggested that, “Ross Douthat‘s column this morning reads like a column from someone whose religious and cultural views lead them to oppose marriage equality but can’t think of a very good reason for the state to prevent recognition of same-sex marriages.”
But then, that’s not quite right. Douthat’s goal doesn’t seem to be to articulate the reasons why traditional marriage is to be preferred at all.
Let’s start at the beginning.
Douthat critiques two “commonplace arguments” for gay marriage, and does so rightly. But he has to know that those aren’t the best arguments social conservatives have in their arsenal. In the case of what counts as “natural,” we’ve spent all kinds of time trying to disabuse people of the notion that it can easily be identified with Darwinian theories of biology—a task made more difficult by Douthat’s decision to reinforce the wrong interpretation. Even while Douthat grants too much to alternative theories of sexuality, he is beating up a straw man.
What social conservatives are defending, according to Douthat, is an “ideal”:
The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.
Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.
Fair enough. But there is no suggestion here that this notion of marriage is specifically religious, or that the “order of creation” is only accessible in and through special revelation. Additionally, it neglects the third party in the cultural mix–the Greeks. Their philosophical vocabulary (teleology) helped Christianity find its sea legs and articulate its “order of creation” in ways that support the case for traditional marriage.
The odd note in Douthat’s piece is this line: “If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary. The lifelong commitment of a gay couple is more impressive than the serial monogamy of straights.”
It’s not clear why a “more impressive” relationship than serial monogamy makes it necessary to give up on the “ideal.” Under those terms, committed caregiving relationships should count as “marriage” as well, despite the looseness of the affective bonds. They are, after all, more “impressive” relationships than serial monogamy.
What’s more, Douthat’s willingness to give up the ideal because of heterosexual’s failure to live up undermines the point of having any ideals at all. It’s a sort of “Anne Rice style politics”—if people fail to meet your standards, jump ship.
But we don’t keep ideals around for fun, or because everyone agrees with them. We argue for them because they’re true—regardless of whether they’ve been instantiated in most places and times. The more transcendental your ideals, we might say, the more practical our politics. If the ideals is true, then we ought to get to the business of figuring out how to take incremental steps toward it.
Look, Douthat is right to point the finger at heterosexuals. We have done an enormous amount of harm to the Western ideal of marriage. But heterosexuals didn’t one day wake up and decide they wanted to become serial monogamists—specific legal and political developments made that a real possibility. It’s impossible to tell the story of the heterosexual betrayal of traditional marriage without including the legal underpinnings of that destruction.
And yet Douthat wants us to see the continuation of that legal destruction of marriage as morally necessary, apparently so that gays and lesbians can join heterosexuals in our “no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy.” Welcome aboard the Titanic, folks!
Douthat’s endorsement of traditional marriage is about as tepid as you’ll find, down to being nearly incoherent. He wants to talk about the ideal, but then let it go when it becomes socially inconvenient. He’s worried—rightly—about being called a bigot, but attempting to straddle both sides won’t satisfy anyone.
August 11th, 2010 | 10:08 am
Frankly, ALL the arguments in defense of “traditional marriage” have been tepid, not just those made by Ross Douthat. The main reason is that “traditional marriage” does not need defending, because it is NOT being attacked! Most people are Straight (i.e. heterosexual), always have been, always will be, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that is going to change when Gay couples are allowed to do the same.
If anything, the quest of marriage equality by law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better for society to promote monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating Gay people to lives of loneliness and promiscuity on the societal fringe.
Most of the commentators and letter-writers I’ve read who oppose marriage equality for Gay couples seem very fond of quoting Scripture. But religious arguments are irrelevant, because the United States is not a theocracy, and churches will still be able to offer or deny ceremonies to whomever they wish.
Of course, the government still considers “marriage” to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. But if, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.
Arguments about parenthood and procreation are likewise irrelevant, since couples do not need a marriage license to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
Perhaps most absurd is the contention that if society accepts marriage equality for Gay couples, the human race faces extinction within a few generations! I suppose this is predicated on the notion that homosexuality would somehow be made compulsory for everyone. Let me assure you: It just doesn’t work that way.
August 11th, 2010 | 10:14 am
I think you’ve misread him. He’s not saying we should give up the ideal. The point is that we–in both our practices and laws–already have given it up, or pretty nearly anyway. This is not to say no one holds to it, or that it’s false. Rather it’s to say that our shared and legal understanding of things like family and marriage no longer limit it in the way the ideal would demand. In that context, a context in which gay relationships are not relevant different than heterosexual relationships we count as marriage, to deny gay marriage is unjustified. Hence the claim that gay marriage is becoming morally necessary.
There’s another way to think about this. Instead of arguing against gay marriage, argue for laws which would work towards recreating the cultural and legal world in which it makes no sense. In making this argument you’d have to be honest–heterosexuals as well as gays will bear the cost as measured in decreased individual liberties. No one will bite. Which is why it’s so much more appealing to pick on gays and say it’s for the sake of an ideal.
August 11th, 2010 | 11:28 am
Regarding what counts as “natural”, I was surprised that Andrew Sullivan called Douthat’s arguments “very Thomist”. If anything, I thought, they’re Scotist.
August 11th, 2010 | 11:33 am
Chuck, settle down. Go easy on those straw men. Take a few deep breaths and go read some of the actual arguments that have been raised against gay “marriage.”
Marriage is neither a “religious designation” nor a “legal contract.” It is a social institution that predates and precedes government and has always been between man and a woman. Thus, the government only recognizes what has always been. There are good reasons for keeping it as it has always been, and these reasons have nothing to do with religious convictions. I’d be happy to point you to some of these reasons. In complete honesty, though, are you really interested in considering arguments that would contradict your position? If all logical reason could be mustered in defense of the present understanding of marriage, is there any chance that you would step down from promoting gay “marriage?”
August 11th, 2010 | 11:44 am
Am I the only person who more than anything simply hates the way a word that is older than Christianity is turned on its head to mean something it never meant? It’s like me calling one of my male siblings my sister. Up is now up AND down, not just up. Dry is also wet, and cold can be hot. Somehow this stuff wouldn’t bug me nearly as much if they simply came up with a new word for this. I wonder if Ms. Chuck, who posted first, can understand. Though she does tell us much we already knew…
August 11th, 2010 | 12:10 pm
Marriage is neither a “religious designation” nor a “legal contract.” It is a social institution that predates and precedes government and has always been between man and a woman. Thus, the government only recognizes what has always been.
Simply not true in the United States. Civil marriage by definition is a legal construct created by statute. Your argument would be more applicable in a country like Israel where civil marriage does not exist: marriage there is regulated solely by religious authorities.
And government certainly does not recognize “what has always been.” Marriages between first cousins and between people who were 14 years old used to be valid. Statutory law has changed this so that such marriages — even if officiated by a priest, rabbi or imam of some kind — are not considered valid by the state.
August 11th, 2010 | 12:21 pm
I believe that Ross Douthat’s article shows real insight into the debate on Same Sex Marriage.
Frankly, it reminds me of nothing so much as the 50-year wrangle in the British press and Parliament over marriage to a deceased wife’s sister.
The opponents, led by Pusey and the Tractarians, in reality held a high sacramental view of marriage and regarded the proposal as sanctioning incest. When preaching to the converted, this is precisely what they did argue, but they knew that such arguments had no traction with the wider public and so they talked much (and badly) about the purity of the English home and the protection of English womanhood and much else besides, until it was clear to every detached observer that they were hunting for any argument they thought might possibly persuade the wavering.
Had they said what they really believed, namely that the country must either acknowledge and accept the teaching, tradition and authority of the Church, or, ultimately, lapse into neo-paganism, I doubt if they would have won the day, but they would not have exposed themselves to the charge of something very like hypocrisy.
August 11th, 2010 | 12:23 pm
I have always been a cereal monogamist. I only eat one cereal at a time. I have never mixed Corn Flakes and Lucky Charms. I finish the opened box after a few days, and then I open another box. Mixing cereal is unnatural, and I am sure there is an Old Testament prohibition against it.
On a more serious note – Gay marriage is now a fact of life. It will be a matter of time before it is legal nationally. The very existence of the phrase “traditional marriage” shows that the word “marriage” by itself needs some sort of clarification.
“Traditional marriage” has been destroyed by divorce. If out of the wreckage of “traditional marriage” comes a new definition of marriage which includes same-sex couples, then something good might come from this upheaval. This can a happy outcome if the love and committment we see in all of these same-sex unions (California’s summer of love a few years ago brought happy tears to my eyes) can spark a renewal in the ideal of married monogamy, be it male-female, female-female, or male-male.
Homosexuals are here. They are people just like the rest of us. They have a desire for affiliation and committment and a sexual relationship. They will never go back into the closets. We must welcome homosexuals to the grand family of humanity and help foster a healthier way to channel the desire for sex, affiliation, and relationships – gay marriage is the answer.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:04 pm
Mark,
If I had a time machine, I’d offer you this challenge: Go back 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, and 200 years into America’s past. Interview 100 random people and ask them what “marriage” means. Report back to me how many people respond with anything remotely close to “a legal construct created by statute.”
No, marriage has in fact always meant a union of a man and a woman that, when Providence or the gods or the spirits looked favorably upon it, issued in children. Restrictions on who may enter into marriage have varied, as you pointed out. But what marriage is has not. The government, recognizing the precedence of the family and for purposes of a well-ordered society, has given its sanction to this pre-existing social arrangement. Government does not create marriage; it recognizes it.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
Mark, I believe Tim’s point is that marriage is neither by definition a religious designation or a legal contract. It can be, and in most modern societies is, one or both of those things. But those are appurtenances, not the thing itself. The thing itself is the permanent union of a man and woman, somehow recognized by the surrounding society as such.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:31 pm
I don’t want to be alarmist, but it does seem, TimC, that ‘love and commitment’ might not be reaffirmed in this process. I do hope that it is, but phenomena like the following make me think that homosexual relationships are something quite different than heterosexual relationships, and things that were once seen as essential to marriage, such as fidelity and an openness to children, will disappear and all that will be left is something like a lifelong friendship (not a bad thing, but that’s not all there is to marriage!):
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-16/entertainment/21985570_1_hiv-prevention-gay-couples-gay-men
‘Having an open partnership is not incompatible with same-sex marriage, said Spears, 59.
‘At least half those interviewed were married, having taken their vows during one of the two brief times when it was legally sanctioned in the city or the state.
‘”It’s a redefinition of marriage,” Spears said. “The emotional commitment, the closeness, all of it is there.”‘
August 11th, 2010 | 2:33 pm
@TimC – I find myself wondering if you know that Appeal to Tradition (e.g. “b/c its the way it’s always been”) argument is a logical fallacy? you said “There are good reasons for keeping it as it has always been, and these reasons have nothing to do with religious convictions. I’d be happy to point you to some of these reasons.” and implied that these were logical reasons. I can speak only for myself, but I would like to hear these reasons. Please share.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:43 pm
*oops, I meant to direct that to jm and Mr. Anziulewicz, not to TimC.
August 11th, 2010 | 2:47 pm
I get a laugh out of jm’s argument: in effect, whatever is is right. Gay marriage is “here” so accept it.
No doubt many social trends get up some Big Mo. But let’s not unduly restrict what counts as a trend. How about family disintegration, failing schools, huge health problems (many caused by psychological factors), on and on. When it begins to dawn on people that they may be paying an enormous price for gay marriage, the latter may not look so inevitable. The question is whether civilization requires some sort of discipline.
August 11th, 2010 | 3:53 pm
And what exactly is the “enormous price” we will pay for recognizing gay marriage?
August 11th, 2010 | 4:57 pm
Hi Macy,
I agree that simply saying “that’s the way we’ve always done it” doesn’t prove that some practice is better than its alternatives. But when the practice of millions of humans of diverse cultures, religions, and times univocally points to a single understanding of what something (e.g. marriage) is and means (man and woman united sexually), the burden of proof ought to rest on those who wish to undermine this universal understanding. (And again, in case someone jumps into the argument here, the particular limits and arrangements surrounding marriage may very well change; the essence of the definition does not.)
That being said, the arguments which I had in mind above are not my own, nor can they be easily summarized in a combox. Therefore, I would refer you to the link available by clicking on my name.
You may or may not find all of the arguments convincing. Some of them require assumptions about what is good and evil that, while broadly accepted not so long ago, have less shared purchase in a post-modern culture. But these arguments are cogent, non-religious, and a far cry from the straw men that Chuck was busy pummeling in his comment.
August 11th, 2010 | 5:45 pm
First: Douthat is most assuredly not a conservative.
Having said that, I think gay “marriage” is inevitable considering that most Americans regard it as a civil rights issue, not a religious issue. They see it as a matter of “equality under the law,” and that’s a very difficult perception to shake.
Christians are afraid that re-defining “marriage” not only perverts what is a sacrament of the church–if you are not religious, you don’t understand this–but is also a major step toward making Christianity illegal. If it comes to that, many churches will close their doors and go underground rather than be forced by the state to pervert their values.
One answer might be to make everyone who wants to get married have to do so as a civil affair, like getting a driver’s license. Then those those who are religious can have a religious ceremony according to their religion’s traditions–without fear of having to accomodate anyone from outside their religion, and preserve the sacramental nature of their marriage.
If gays want a church wedding, they can go to the Episcopalians.
We have to make some compromise here.
August 11th, 2010 | 8:30 pm
marriage has included polygamy and divorce, but one has to wonder where same sex marriage has been the norm outside of modern western nations.
The denial that there is a difference between men and women is the basis for this court decision.
This is dangerous, because it ignores biological reality, that sexes are different, in mind and body, and that women, not men, are harmed by destroying their ability to function as mothers to give them the “right” to be pseudo men.
the American people rejected the “equal rights amendment” just for that reason. Guess no one remembers that either.
August 11th, 2010 | 9:23 pm
“The denial that there is a difference between men and women is the basis for this court decision.”
I thought that the strangest part of the opinion since it undermines the interracial marriage analogy. If, let’s say, Fred, a white man, says at a party in front of a group of friends that he would never marry a black woman though he may entertain marrying an Asian one, we would consider his comment racist, since we believe that being black is not relevant to being female. On the other hand, if Fred, in this scenario a gay male, had said at the same party he would never a woman, we would not think twice about it. But if gender is irrelevant in the same way that race is irrelevant, then Fred is irrational in preferring men over women. But Fred is not irrational, then Judge Walker is wrong that gender is not relevant anymore.
August 11th, 2010 | 9:23 pm
Letter to Mr. Douthat’s blog submitted 8-10. Not posted as of 8-11:
You are mistaken again, Mr. Douthat.
Anthony Kennedy, like Judge Walker, will not be facing a “traditional legal understanding of marriage [as] unconstitutional — and, by extension, that it’s irrational and bigoted to think otherwise —”
He will face, recognize, and promote the idea that, if two men can share their lives in monogamy, there remains no excuse – i.e. domestication of a man by a woman – for the persisting myth that marriage and love is about men who “just can’t help themselves.”
We sure can help each other by example.
Heavy lifting ahead, Mr. Douthat.
August 11th, 2010 | 9:35 pm
Mark, I believe Tim’s point is that marriage is neither by definition a religious designation or a legal contract. It can be, and in most modern societies is, one or both of those things. But those are appurtenances, not the thing itself. The thing itself is the permanent union of a man and woman, somehow recognized by the surrounding society as such.
If so, then there is — as the lawyers say — no case or controversy here. Government, by definition, cannot change Platonic abstractions that exist outside of time and space. All it can do is change the statute books. As long as the (hypothetical, in my opinion) Platonic abstraction continues to exist, what is the complaint? Every legal marriage that exists today will continue to exist tomorrow even with gay marriage.
August 11th, 2010 | 9:38 pm
Anything more than a tepid defense of traditional marriage would probably get Douthat fired from the NYTimes, yes?
I took his article as pointing out that SSM advocates shut down debate and shout down objectors as bigoted. It wasn’t meant to be a strong defense, just one of those usual ineffective “pleas for dialogue.”
August 11th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
But if gender is irrelevant in the same way that race is irrelevant, then Fred is irrational in preferring men over women. But Fred is not irrational, then Judge Walker is wrong that gender is not relevant anymore.
This confuses the roles of government and of individuals. Even after Loving v. Virginia, I believe one can indicate a marital preference for members of a certain race without being presumed “racist.” Many — if not most — people have such preferences and while they may be superficial, they are no more odious than preferring a red head or a blonde or the guy with a square jaw and six-pack abs. For that matter, many people prefer to marry someone of their own religion without incurring accusations of religious discrimination.
But government can take no note of these characteristics when it comes to family law. Judge Walker is likewise saying government can take no note of whether the two parties in a marriage contract are of opposite sex when issuing a marriage license.
August 11th, 2010 | 11:40 pm
Christians are afraid that re-defining “marriage” not only perverts what is a sacrament of the church–if you are not religious, you don’t understand this–but is also a major step toward making Christianity illegal.
Not at all. There are other religions aside from Christianity being practiced in the U.S. I have a gay Jewish friend for instance — if he decides to get married one day (not likely, but that’s another story) it’s no business of any Christian church at all.
In the state of California, literally any official from any religious denomination whatsoever can officiate a marriage. No non-state official is ever compelled to officiate a marriage he or she does not wish to.
August 12th, 2010 | 5:00 am
What Ahem suggests, namely a civil marriage ceremony, preceding any religious one, has long been a legal requirement in France and some other European countries.
August 12th, 2010 | 8:04 am
If so, then there is — as the lawyers say — no case or controversy here. Government, by definition, cannot change Platonic abstractions that exist outside of time and space. All it can do is change the statute books. As long as the (hypothetical, in my opinion) Platonic abstraction continues to exist, what is the complaint?
I’ve seen this Platonic nonsense trotted out elsewhere in discussions on these matters, and I am becoming convinced that you understand neither language nor Plato. To say that a word has a meaning is not appealing to a Platonic abstraction. It is appealing to a shared definition. Saying “one plus one” has always equaled “two.” This is a simple question of definition of the words “one”, “plus”, and “two”. Plato has no business here.
But government can, by changing the statute books, enforce a change in how a word may be used. Let us take the example of Negro slaves. Negro slaves were fully human persons, and remained so, even when the government ruled that that they were 3/5 of a person or that they had the same status as other private property. The government enforced a legal fiction that usurped the definition of human person. By your line of reasoning, this should have been no big deal. The slaves were still fully human persons in their essence. The government just changed the statute books. But of course, in so doing, the government forced everyone to act as if what was really true (the slaves were fully human and had the same rights as non-slaves) was not true.
Of course, the obvious objection will be that slaves were deprived rights, whereas gay marriage would extend rights. But this is not a question of “rights” but of truth. We could enact a similarly expansive legal fiction and mandate that family pets have the same rights as children. After all, look at how poorly some people treat their children and and how well others treat their pets. And consider the infertile couple, who didn’t choose to be that way, but would like to have the same benefits (tax deductions, etc.) as those who are able to have children. Would you deny them their “rights”? If so, why? Simply because dogs are not children? Then you’re just relying on a Platonic abstraction, my friend…
August 12th, 2010 | 9:12 am
The National Library of Medicine publications all confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual’s ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
Sexual orientation is exactly similar to left-handedness: biological, unchangeable, innocent. We used to think left-handed was evil (Latin for left is “sinister”), and force lefties to use only their right hand, even though they never really changed. Research reveals variable hormonal levels in pregnancy permanently affect a child’s neural circuitry for sexual orientation and gender identity: a little more testosterone in fetal girls’ brains from an adrenal condition can cause <50% to be lesbian, 10% to be transgender. Sharing the womb with a boy co-twin (amniotic fluid has some of his testosterone) causes <15% of girl co-twins to be lesbian. These girls also have the bone structure and physical coordination of boys, so they are good in sports.
Less testosterone for boys' brains from mother's blocking antibody from having many older brothers causes <15% of boys to be gay. These boys can have the physiology/verbal skills like girls, and excel in language and visual arts.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
Gay people are simply born that way and deserve the American dream of equal access and treatment. America’s premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality to provide the same responsibilities/benefits to the same-sex couple that opposite sex couples enjoy.
When interracial marriages became legal, marriage was not ruined. No new institution of "Interracial marriages" was created. Likewise, there is no "same-sex marriage", only marriage. There is no further reason to discriminate, except ignorance or bigotry. Think of what you would want for yourself or your your family.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:07 am
Assuming Kate O’Hanlan is right, her conclusions do not follow. No one doubts that impotence can arise from malformation in the early stages of development, but, if incurable by art or skill, it is an impediment to marriage for all that.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:07 am
Tim, my response was directed at pentamom more than you, who referred to marriage as “the thing itself.” To refer to an idea as a “thing” practically begs a reference to Plato, especially when one considers it as having a fixed set of essential characteristics.
Now, for you to consider granting human rights to pets and the 3/5 clause of the Constitution as your strongest analogies is to concede the argument. If you know your American history, you would know that Northern abolitionists did not want slaves to count at all when it came to apportioning representatives among the several states while slave owners wanted slaves to count as a full person: the whole point was to over-represent the slave states in the House.
This point aside (which actually demonstrates how the connection between language and policy is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think it is), your analogies involve zero-sum games concerning rights. Granting one entity rights means taking rights away from another entity. That is not really the case with gay marriage, though. One gay person getting married does not affect your material rights at all. As I said, you have no case or controversy.
As for the meaning of words, this is obviously determined by social convention and changes over time as well as across regions and countries. It has literally nothing to do with the wisdom or lack thereof of a given statutory change.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:35 am
Assuming Kate O’Hanlan is right, her conclusions do not follow. No one doubts that impotence can arise from malformation in the early stages of development, but, if incurable by art or skill, it is an impediment to marriage for all that.
You deliberately picked the easy example. It’s certainly true that a man who cannot sexually please a woman will have a tough time in the marriage market — but maybe not an impossible time.
But what about a woman who is infertile for any number of reasons? That’s no impediment to marriage as long as her man can live without having a biological child as many can and do.
Moreover, I think even you recognize that it would be morally wrong to deny that woman the right to marry the man of her choice because of her biological condition. It is rightly none of the state’s business in the first place.
August 12th, 2010 | 10:43 am
Mark,
I am well aware of the reasons behind counting slaves as 3/5 of a person (and, in fact, the “whole point” was not representation; taxation was equally significant.) But you’ll notice that the particular motives for imposing this doctrine played no place in my argument. The “why” is irrelevant. If slaves had been counted as zero persons, the argument is the same. What matters is that the government imposed a legal fiction upon a fact of reality. That is the point of the analogy.
As to the “zero-sum” argument, precisely who loses in the case of the government declaring that pets have equal legal status with children and shall in fact be referred to as “children”? Do the children lose rights? I don’t see how.
As to words changing meaning, I challenge you to find even one example of any time, region or country before the last 30 years in which the durable relationship of a man and a woman in sexual union did not have a unique status and a unique lingual construction to designate it. Some words do change meaning. But some do not. “One” always means “one”. It never means “two”. The fact that “marriage” has retained its meaning across millennia and cultures is strong evidence that it points to an enduring and uniquely privileged relationship that is foundational to human society. You may cavalierly dismiss that as “literally nothing,” but that sounds to me like the height of arrogance.
Nevertheless, I’ll concede you that right on the day you let me claim my dog as a dependent on my 1040.
August 12th, 2010 | 11:01 am
Nevertheless, I’ll concede you that right on the day you let me claim my dog as a dependent on my 1040.
I thought the point about the zero-sum nature of rights was clear but in case it is not, I will spell it out.
The day you get to declare your dog as a dependent on your 1040 is the day you open yourself up to investigation by the newly formed Canine Protection Service for possible criminal allegations of abuse through feeding your dog foul-tasting “dog food [how degrading!]” or food not properly fortified with vitamins. CPS will also make sure that if your dog gets cancer you will be personally obligated to spend $20,000 on surgery and chemotherapy just as you would for your child. You can go to prison and/or have your dog taken away into foster care for failing to meet your obligations as dictated by CPS.
Deal?
Now, back in the real world, legal fictions are created all the time. A U.S.-flagged ship 20 nautical miles off the coast of Manila, Philippines is “U.S. territory” for legal purposes despite the fact that it is obviously just a hunk of steel floating thousands of miles away from the U.S. And I won’t get started on how the law defines corporations as “persons.” A legal fiction is a problem to the extent it has negative consequences. You seem to assume they are presumptively bad without offering any actual argument.
August 12th, 2010 | 12:11 pm
Deal?
You bet, assuming, of course, that my dog also gets to go through 12 years of public schooling on your property tax dime, can receive WIC your income tax dime, and can swim at the public pool next to your kids.
It cuts both ways, doesn’t it? Once you turn everything into a legal construction divorced from fundamental realities, anything goes and all rational boundaries disappear. The only thing that remains is what the law says. Reality is determined by those who exercise power.
Furthermore, this discussion of dogs and children points to how I am in fact materially affected by granting the legal status of marriage on gay unions. To the degree that they receive the same benefits from the government that married couples receive today (this is one of their points of contention, as you know) they are adding to the burden of government obligations and, by extension, my tax burden. Whether this is right or wrong, you and I undoubtedly disagree; the uncontestable fact remains, however, that I am affected materially.
I agree with you that there are legal fictions that may be useful. But legal fictions are always suspect, because the government is enforcing something that is false. In some cases this may be necessary (i.e. to adjudicate contests between human beings and commercial entities.) But as you allude to in the case of corporations, these fictions often have unintended and unforeseen consequences. We would do well to think long and hard before enacting any lie as law, particularly when it seeks to change a concept so fundamental as marriage and family. (Not coincidentally, this is one reason why no-fault divorce law is also nefarious; it provides a patina of legality to the breaking of oaths–oaths that find their origin not in legal strictures but in the very nature of human beings.)
August 12th, 2010 | 12:49 pm
they are adding to the burden of government obligations and, by extension, my tax burden.
Those benefits are more accurately described as privileges or tax breaks. They rarely if ever come in the form of direct subsidies. The more common complaint is that the status quo of public benefits is somewhat biased against married couples.
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on whether legally expanding the concept of marriage to include gay couples is beneficial or not. But that is surely where the argument belongs.
August 12th, 2010 | 2:05 pm
I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on whether legally expanding the concept of marriage to include gay couples is beneficial or not. But that is surely where the argument belongs.
Precisely. It is not a matter of rights but of wisdom and prudence.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:00 am
“As to words changing meaning, I challenge you to find even one example of any time, region or country before the last 30 years in which the durable relationship of a man and a woman in sexual union did not have a unique status and a unique lingual construction to designate it.”
I’ll bite. In many cultures throughout history, including dozens today, a man may marry two, three, four or more women, cases in which “the durable relationship of a man and a woman in sexual union” does not have a unique status, precisely because those marriages are not solely between one man and one woman. In many cases, a first wife has no say over whether a man enters subsequent marriages. The decision to allow or prohibit plural marriage seems like a much bigger change to the fundamental definition of marriage than allowing same-sex couples into the club. Arguments about the three-fifths clause and pet rights are frankly, weak tea, and shed no light on whether or not gay and lesbian couples (and their children) should be afforded the rights and responsibilities available to straight folk.
August 13th, 2010 | 10:04 am
Andrew,
References to polygamy only strengthen the traditional definition of marriage. You’ll notice that the very word (poly-gamy) denotes multiple marriages–not multiple people: multiple sexual unions between a man and a woman. That these unions are concurrent does not change the fact that the marriage (gamy) is always between the man and the woman. Furthermore, you’ll note that the multiple wives of a man never refer to each other as “my wife.” Generally the term is “sister” or something similar. But polygamy is never a group marriage. It is always multiple concurrent instances of a man and a woman.
The decision to allow or prohibit plural marriage seems like a much bigger change to the fundamental definition of marriage than allowing same-sex couples into the club.
This is only true if you believe one’s sex (male or female) is an accidental feature and not essential to his or her being. If you hold this to be true (and I understand that many do), then, yes, we’re back to arguing whether it’s a good thing to legally sanction gay “marriage.” But the wisdom and experience of the ages (not to mention basic biological observation) strongly suggests that men and women are distinct modes of being human. They are equally persons, but their way of being persons is not the same.
As to your dismissal of the analogies I presented earlier as weak tea, I’ll wait to respond until you present a substantial argument to back up your hand waving.
August 13th, 2010 | 2:57 pm
[...] of topics.) Before the weekend, though let me quickly address a critique from the right — from Matthew Lee Anderson at First Things, who criticized my column for implying that the heterosexual abandonment of the marital ideal could [...]
August 13th, 2010 | 5:37 pm
Yesterday I watched a short video of gay and lesbian couples when they first heard the news that they would be allowed to marry (before they realized there would be a delay). The happiness on their faces, the joy that they expressed, was wonderful to see. I had tears in my eyes.
Why, when we know that we all have such short lives, when we know that there is so much suffering and pain and violence in this world (even in the US where most live relatively good lives), would we ever want to deny two people whatever happiness they can find, all for the sake of upholding the “ideal” version of marriage that some people hold?
August 13th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
Why, when we know that we all have such short lives, when we know that there is so much suffering and pain and violence in this world (even in the US where most live relatively good lives), would we ever want to deny two people whatever happiness they can find, . . . ?
It’s not that we want to deny them pleasure, it’s that we want them to find happiness in the classical sense of fitting themselves to reality, of being most fully themselves, and when we read the scriptures we read that this, as the Biblical writers understood it, precludes gay relationships.
But for me, the strongest evidence submitted in support of the argument that God blesses and is honored by committed gay relationships is the fact that so many of them last. To love God is to commit oneself to loving one’s fellow human beings, and is there a fuller, more mature love than that of one committed partner to another? If gays can meet this test — and they can — then who am I to say their love for each other is not of God?
August 14th, 2010 | 5:37 pm
Ken writes: “It’s not that we want to deny them pleasure, it’s that we want them to find happiness in the classical sense of fitting themselves to reality, of being most fully themselves, and when we read the scriptures we read that this, as the Biblical writers understood it, precludes gay relationships.”
There must be something wrong with your logic, because it surely leads to a contradiction in the real world. Gay men who have been encouraged in the past to “try out” heterosexuality, to marry a woman and have some kids, of pretending to be someone they are not, have generally caused themselves and their spouses and their families nothing but pain and misery.
Are you really truly saying that you’d love for your daughter to marry a gay boy?
I’ll leave it to you to figure out where your logic goes wrong, but I’m pretty sure it somewhere around the claim that “Bible writers” understood the complexity of the modern world.
August 14th, 2010 | 7:27 pm
Well, first of all, TJ, you seem to have read only that first paragraph of my post. My logic, for what it’s worth, follows in the next paragraph. Secondly, if we’re talking about logic, you should note that avoiding gay relationships doesn’t require one to try heterosexual ones.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact