David and Rusty, I think you’re exactly right about the new IAV manifesto. Because of what you point out—the manifesto says good things but will nonetheless have negative rather than positive consequences for marriage—this could be a fruitful dialogue opportunity. The manifesto demands “a new conversation,” and a conversation implies two sides. The IAV support-marriage-but-surrender-on-gay-marriage caucus is one side. Who’s the other? They seem to think it’s people who dislike marriage in general. What if their dialogue partner was us—people who share their desire to combat divorce but don’t want to surrender our consciences on gay marriage, as their manifesto seems to ask us to do?
Right now, the position staked out by IAV is the one most likely to find a positive reception in the halls of cultural power. The future terms of discussion about marriage will probably depend on who engages with that caucus and how they do it. Could we build a cross-ideological movement to combat divorce that brought together people like the IAV caucus and people like ourselves? Such coalitions are not uncommon—just look at how an issue like immigration scrambles all the usual ideological alignments. Suppose divorce became a similar cross-cutting, ideology-scrambling issue? That would redraw the battle lines in our favor, I think – even on the gay marriage issue. The marriage movement needs some entrepreneurial thinking.
January 31st, 2013 | 3:28 pm
Greg Forster:
Thanks for this post. I’d appreciate the chance to be a part of the dialogue you propose.
You say: “The IAV support-marriage-but-surrender-on-gay-marriage caucus is one side. Who’s the other? They seem to think it’s people who dislike marriage in general.”
Well, leaving aside for a moment how you describe my and my colleagues’ position, let me respond to your assumption that I (at least) think the people on the “other side” are mainly those who “dislike marriage in general.”
Not really. People who declined invitations to sign our statment basically were in one of the following three groups:
1. Pro gay marriage people who thought we were too squishy on gay marriage and that the statement was wrong in subordinating gay marriage to the issue of class inequality.
2. People who thought that our emphasis on marriage’s institutionality was too rigid and involved too much finger-pointing (at, e.g. single mothers or divorced persons).
3. People who wanted the statement to contain a definition of marriage consistent with excluding same-sex couples.
Those points of view, as far as I can see now, are what makes up the “other side(s)” from us.
January 31st, 2013 | 5:15 pm
OK, I’ll admit “people who dislike marriage in general” was my rough blogger shorthand for the kinds of people who would fall into your categories 1 and 2, especially 2. As Mickey Kaus says, the basic dynamic of blogging is to trade off discursive quality for speed.
Seems pretty clear to me you’re identifying two “other sides”; for lack of more precise terms let’s say your categories 1 and 2 are the progressive “other side” and your category 3, including myself and others here at FT, are the conservative “other side.” My impression from the manifesto is that you’re primarily focused on engaging in discussion with the progressive other side; based on their posts, David and Rusty seem to have the same impression. Your strategy seems to be to say to the progressive other side something like this: “Hey, you’re not currently prioritizing the strengthening of marrage, and we really think you need to; we want you to know that you can strengthen marriage for everybody consistent with supporting gay marriage.”
So let me ask you, in all seriousness: what could people like us do or say to demonstrate that you’ll do more good for the cause of marriage by investing your time in talking to us and saying something like this: “Hey, we disagree about whether to fight against gay marriage, but we agree about fighting against divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing; let’s form an ideology-scrambling left/right coalition against easy divorce and illegitimacy.”
Because you can’t win if you push people away in both directions, and from the way you reach out to the progressives in your manifesto I think you would agree; what I’d like to convince you of is that you’ll find more willing coalition partners over here than over there.
February 2nd, 2013 | 12:08 am
Heard you on As It Happens tonight on public radio. I like your position on the importance of marriage: it is worthy of support. Your stance on inclusion I think is a catalyst for strengthening marriage: commitment does wonderful things for people… including our gay a lesbian citizens elevates the argument wonderfully: marriage is serious, not to be taken lightly, and it is a public signal of commitment and responsibility.
February 4th, 2013 | 1:47 am
What has “gay marriage” got to do with it, David Blankenhorn, when the SSM idea is “a conceptual mess” that “effaces” the marriage idea?
The arguments for SSM are arguments against marriage. Or have zilch to do with the issues you think need to be advanced to strengthen marriage. For instance the pro-SSM argument — or shrug — regarding the seperation of marriage from the unity of motherhood and fatherhood that’s anti-marriage . Or, for another instance, the non-marriage purpose of affirming in law and culture the asserted “equal dignity of homosexual love”; that’s got zilch to do with marriage.
You need to resolve the contradiction of asking for marriage supporters to strengthen marriage by abandoning the marriage idea.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact