Help me, Mona
I just listened to the "Marriage Thing" podcast and it left me uneasy. {Full disclosure, I adore Mona Charen and Peter and James and Rob, so nothing personal here} Peter R. succinctly asked Mona about the libertarian attitude toward gay marriage; to wit, that marriage is between individuals and none of the government's business anyways. Mona's response troubled me. If I heard it right, her answer was (I paraphrase): Raising children is super important. Having married heterosexual parents is the best way to raise children. Therefore the state has a justifiable role in getting involved in who gets married and how.
Boy, that logic scares me. Isn't that the same line of thinking which says ____________ (fill in the blank) is important, therefore the government should get involved. Isn't that the same thinking that has brought us nationalized health insurance, individual mandates, government-run agriculture, government-directed housing, government-run schooling, etc. and everything else we conservatives/libertarians don't like? It seems to me that the marriage issue is a real litmus test for conservatives: here's an issue we truly think is important, but are we consistent enough to believe in it without the force of the government backing us up?
Let me know if I'm missing something.
- Comment (168)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Help me, Mona
The state has been involved in marriage over property rights. Men did not want their hard earned home and stuff going to a child seeded by Fabio. This point of prooerty and rightful inheritence is why Liberal feminists teach that the government is trying to rule over their wombs and that marriage is for true love, the honeymoon should never end. How can romantic love be the main reason to stay together but tat has become the dominant thinking by liberals. James Lileks made such a humorous point in the podcast about how liberals frame marriage as the white picket fence Gulag.
Jul '10
Re: Help me, Mona
No, I don't think that actually, but it typifies the oversimplification of opposing arguments that has made this discussion -- here as elsewhere -- so fruitless and wearisome. Since you don't directly address the substance of my post, may I take it that the distinction between the particular instance (a marriage) and the general principle (marriage as an institution) has finally sunk in…?
Apparently not. You still don't get it. It's not about you and me and people who think like we do. The whole point of the SSM movement is to raise a few consecutive generations of people who don't think at all like we do. Marriage as we knew it will be gone, and you and I won't have a thing to say about it. But our posterity will have to live amongst the ruins of an institution we couldn't be bothered to preserve.
Jul '10
Re: Help me, Mona
@Astonishing: Brother, I feel your pain.
Oct '10
Re: Help me, Mona
'Scuse me for being naïve, butwhyisn't this a convincing argument if it's obvious? Do you mean not convincingat all, or not convincing "enough" (and "enough" for what)?
If it is impossible for human beings to enter into mutually beneficial contracts, then what hope is there for humanity? And then also aren't all markets as evil as the most paranoid...
The bold line is the basic premise of much of social conservatism: that capitalism and democracy only works if the population at large is moral and trustworthy. This is why I present gay marriage in socially conservative terms, and why I often get into disagreements with libertarians. I view gay marriage as a coercive means of bourgeoisafying gay couples, while libertarians view it as a right. We don't really agree on the issue.
Also, I did present several examples of why the two-party exchange argument isn't universally convincing. Asymmetrical information is the classic case, but violence is another, as is other externalities.
[edit: Obviously, my view of SSM leads to very different policy: gay marriage should be legalized by popular referendum, not courts, to maximize coercive social pressure to conform to monogamous bourgeois norms.]
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 5:52amFeb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Peter Christofferson
The whole point of the SSM movement is to raise a few consecutive generations of peoplewho don't think at all like we do.Marriage as we knew it will be gone, and you and I won't have a thing to say about it. But our posterity will have to live amongst the ruins of an institution we couldn't be bothered to preserve.
That applies to everything leftist. While exclaiming that all they want is for each person to make his own choices, they work to accustom the entire population to ignoring all choices of which leftists do not approve. They have put into practice politically what conservatives do only in the household: habituation. After only one generation people forget what used to be, and only a few bother to read and talk about it. After two or three generations, even the most anti-leftist conservatives shrug their shoulders and accept the permanence of certain leftist accomplishments.
I wish more conservatives understood this point.
Oct '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Astonishing
But even if I did think that, how would that have relevance to my modest little point thatTommy De Seno was uproariously incorrectabout an important historical fact when he asserted the
All I can do to resist the silliness is return boringly, relentlessly, to my modest little counterpoint, which is that the political power (i.e., "the state") has always been "involved" in determining what constitutes a valid marriage. Ask Henry VIII. See the 1604 English statute criminalizing bigamy. Read a little history of Roman law. · 38 minutes ago
That was surprisingly sloppy and even if it were true, I don't think it would affect the argument.
Look, human beings do not tolerate social nihilism. Periods of social nihilism are always--always--followed by intense reactionary backlashes. If gay marriage becomes law and moves marriage law in a more nihilistic direction, voters will get rid of it, regardless of what public opinion was in 2012. That's why we have to take the issue away from nihilists, many of whom are libertarians (though of course most libertarians aren't nihilists).
Jul '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno: "I understand your argument. I reject it as baseless.
"You have zero empirical evidence to show heterosexuals will reject marriage if gays can do it, so why should I believe you?"
Well, similar arguments were made regarding the liberalization of the divorce laws. Some warned of the dire consequences of treating marriage so lightly. Others said nonsense, marriage will be just fine, if not stronger, and anyway people have a right to chuck away miserable, loveless relationships. Fair give-and-take on both sides, but it's hard to argue that easy divorce has done marriage much good.
But leave it aside. You're right, I don't have the "empirical evidence" you demand. I'm merely making an argument from shared experience and human nature. I'm pessimistic, however; I suspect, once we've finished kicking away one of the few remaining pillars holding up our tottering cultural inheritance, we'll get all the empirical evidence you could want. Let's hope you're dead right and I'm dead wrong, since we won't get a second chance on this one.
Oct '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Peter Christofferson
Tommy De Seno: "I understand your argument. I reject it as baseless.
"You have zero empirical evidence to show heterosexuals will reject marriage if gays can do it, so why should I believe you?"
Well, similar arguments were made regarding the liberalization of the divorce laws. Some warned of the dire consequences of treating marriage so lightly. Others said nonsense, marriage will be just fine, if not stronger, and anyway people have a right to chuck away miserable, loveless relationships. Fair give-and-take on both sides, but it's hard to argue that easy divorce has done marriage muchgood.
I think it depends how SSM happens and who legalizes it. If the anti-family nihilist left legalizes it, it will be used against traditional marriage. On the other hand, imagine if a gay marriage ballot initiative included a repeal of no-fault divorce, and a monogamy requirement? That would have a different effect on traditional marriage.
Jul '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Think there's much chance of either thing being seriously proposed? Can you imagine what would happen to conservatives who proposed the repeal of no-fault divorce? "It's a war on women!" "Conservatives want to permanently imprison women in abusive relationships with no possibility of escape!" "Women as chattel: the Republican ideal!"
Great heavens, the attack ads write themselves…
Apr '12
Re: Help me, Mona
The myopia in certain arguments is an indication of libertarian nihilism.
To brush away history and culture, to reduce humanity to a few narrow categories is the apex of hubris.
Many times such adherence is not the fault of its acolytes so we attempt reason and argument.
Let us consider the case of B.F. Skinner and behaviorism.
In its most basic form Skinner’s theory was that animals react to stimulus and that they could be trained to respond in certain ways through reward and punishment. This was operant conditioning and the theory’s ultimate explanation for all behavior. Acts were not decided. Instead they were merely a response to stimulus.
The theory negated free will.
It was widely accepted.
But, Skinner had the temerity to extend behaviorism to linguistics. This raised Noam Chomsky’s hackles and in “A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior” the linguist mercilessly eviscerated Skinner and the theory. Chomsky demonstrated that behaviorism was self-referential and that it completely failed to explain unconditioned behavior.
Behaviorism was dead.
In a similar overreach, libertarianism attempts to circumscribe humanity in economic terms without regard to history or culture, ultimately, mistaking an analytical tool for theory.
Apr '12
Re: Help me, Mona
Sadly much of the argument from the libertarian school on this thread has been mere rhetorical technique. Laudable for a sophist, reprehensible to the dialectician.
The fault for this is not in the adherents necessarily, but in their theory.
Libertarian viewpoints are susceptible to reductio ad absurdum because the analytical tool for discerning the ultimate, final effects of government on individual freedom is its foundation.
Please entertain this coherent libertarian argument regarding marriage. It is necessarily a reductio:
The accurate libertarian argument is that laws governing marriage should not be at issue because marriage should be handled by private contract if at all.
This is madness. It is also why the libertarians are unable to argue coherently on this topic.
Anyway, the supporters of SSM do not want the dissolution of marriage but its modification.
Notice that a civil union conveying all the rights and privileges of marriage will not do for supporters of SSM who want the word! [That another topic entirely.]
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
Let me jump in and defend economists! Economists are very much aware of the idea of the marginal case. This is the concept that Mr. De Seno insists upon ignoring or (with unmatched irony) waving off as a snarky non-sequitur, but is really at the heart of the matter. He keeps saying things like, 'gay people getting married can't possibly make me stop loving my wife, ergo marriage as an institution cannot be in danger,' even as Mr. Cristofferson, Leporello, and I (again linking to this) keep insisting that this has not one darn thing to do with him personally, but with society. As we have seen over the decades, with the evidence of our own eyes, apparently minor changes to the law and culture, while in no way affecting Mr. De Seno's love for his wife, nonetheless managed to all but destroy marriage in many American neighborhoods. That's because of the economics principle of the marginal case, so don't go knocking economists quite yet!
Furius Camillus:
In a similar overreach, libertarianism attempts to circumscribe humanity in economic terms without regard to history or culture, ultimately, mistaking an analytical tool for theory. · 16 minutes ago
Nov '11
Re: Help me, Mona
[thought better of this comment, for true civility's sake] goodnight!
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 8:04amOct '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno doesn't “want government selling licenses to anyone to marry - straight or gay.” I agree, but only if marriage is redefined from something that does benefit society (traditional marriage, for reasons Mona Charen cites) to something that does not (any other definition of marriage).
If SSM stands, can we agree that (a) there’s no limiting principle (by what logic is marriage restricted to couples, forget gender?); and therefore, (b) government (at any level) should get out of the marriage equation altogether?
Let churches, synagogues, the House of Zor, Bob’s Bigamy Palace—whatever—sell all the marriage licenses that (any combination of) people (or another species—it will go there) care to purchase. Legally binding arrangements (let’s just say communal property rights generally we associate with traditional marriage) can still be enforced by State governments, as well as the legal obligation for parents to care for biological children. We just won’t have the Seal of the State affixed to it, save to the extent it already does on contracts among lawful private citizens.
Once the link between marital form and societal benefit is broken, there is no compelling state interest in the matter.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
To clarify my own position: While I agree with everything else you've written here, Adrian, I believe that authorizing same-sex marriage will have a bad impact on my marriage as well as on marriage generally. Other peoples' attitudes and practices toward marriage have a tremendous affect on what I do. To take only one example among many: If other people are shucking off marriage when it becomes inconvenient, that makes it harder for me to be as serious about my marriage. But if other people are persevering in marriage, I too will strive to persevere.
The same goes for other things outside the marital context. If others dress well, I will be more inclined to dress well. If others listen to Bach instead of Slayer, I will be inclined to listen to Bach, too. Etc.
Feb '12
Re: Help me, Mona
And, let me add, if others do things with which I disagree, I may not follow their examples, but I will lack support for the things I wish to do. That will mean that I might not progress as far in those things as I would if I had more help from others.
If others speak only of John Grisham but I wish to speak of Schiller and Goethe, I may not switch to Grisham, but I may have to rely on my own wits to understand German literature. In late 19th century Vienna, by contrast, it was much more common to find others interested in Goethe and Schiller, and therefore much easier to plumb the depths of their works. Not surprisingly, many more men of letters and authors emerged from that time and place than from 21st century Vienna (or New York).
Either way - whether I match my behavior to that of others, or whether I stick to my own path - I am greatly affected by what others do.
Re: Help me, Mona
Joseph Eagar
Astonishing
But even if I did think that, how would that have relevance to my modest little point thatTommy De Seno was uproariously incorrectabout an important historical fact when he asserted the
That was surprisingly sloppy and even if it were true, I don't think it would affect the argument.
I thought we covered this. My impression was that we were on the topic of marriage formation, exclusive of judicial interpretation of contract breach and anomalies like bigamy.
We are limited, after all, to 200 words. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Removing my assertion from its intended topic and planting it in another field of conversation isn't exactly fair - particularly when I've repeated the clarification.
I stand by the assertion - 1753 was the first time government set down legal procedures for marriage, taking it away from both social custom and religion. That is why the act is still written about 350 years later. A true turing point in the relationhip between the government and the governed.
I've read many legal and historical accounts of this and have never seen that point disputed until this thread.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 12:40pmRe: Help me, Mona
Peter Christofferson
Well, similar arguments were made regarding the liberalization of the divorce laws. Some warned of the dire consequences of treating marriage so lightly. Others said nonsense, marriage will be just fine, if not stronger, and anyway people have a right to chuck away miserable, loveless relationships. Fair give-and-take on both sides, but it's hard to argue that easy divorce has done marriage muchgood.
Peter,
I think your concern about creeping deterioration regarding societal value of heterosexual marriage once SSM is allowed is a valid one. I did not mean to minimize it by talking about immediate effects on folks like my wife and me (Leporello weighed in on that issue in comment 135, and I suspect he won't encounter the derision I did for the effort, thanks only to coming to a different conclusion).
Again - 200 word limits can cloud subjects. I’m glad to comment on the subject you intended.
I think there is some empirical evidence in your favor when comparing abortion - the tolerance for it seemed to spike when the government said it couldn't be banned.
That brings us to something akin to a security vs liberty type of inquiry.
Edited on May 15, 2012 at 1:07pmJul '10
Re: Help me, Mona
Tommy De Seno: "Again - 200 word limits can cloud subjects…
"I think there is some empirical evidence in your favor when comparing abortion - the tolerance for it seemed to spike when the government said it couldn't be banned.
"That brings us to something akin to a security vs liberty type of inquiry."
Yes, I think we're on the same page now. You've stated quite clearly the idea I was trying to get at. And I couldn't agree more about the 200 word limit. I'm in favor and all, but I know it causes me to sacrifice clarity for brevity far too often, especially when I'm attempting to quote the essence of someone else's post without seeming to truncate it unfairly.
Maybe we could arrange with the suits to give us an extra 50-100 words, to be used only when quoting.
Re: Help me, Mona
Peter Christofferson
Tommy De Seno: "Again - 200 word limits can cloud subjects…
"I think there is some empirical evidence in your favor when comparing abortion - the tolerance for it seemed to spike when the government said it couldn't be banned.
"That brings us to something akin to a security vs liberty type of inquiry."
Yes, I think we're on the same page now. You've stated quite clearly the idea I was trying to get at. And I couldn't agree more about the 200 word limit. I'm in favor and all, but I know it causes me to sacrifice clarity for brevity far too often, especially when I'm attempting to quote the essence of someone else's post without seeming to truncate it unfairly.
Maybe we could arrange with the suits to give us an extra 50-100 words, to be used only when quoting. · 16 minutes ago
That's an excellent idea. Must be an editor reading this thread out there somewhere.