Marriage Matters
As the Ricochet editors mentioned, tomorrow Encounter Books releases my new book, co-authored with Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense. So while blogging at Ricochet this week, I thought I’d explore some of the issues raised by the book—and recent events, thanks to the Supreme Court. Today I’d like to situate the debate over the definition of marriage within its proper context.
Some people wonder why conservatives choose to focus exclusively on same-sex marriage. The answer is simple: We don’t. First, conservatives always did—and still do—make other social and political efforts to strengthen the marriage culture. The push for same-sex marriage was brought to us. Second, now that this is the live debate, we can’t ignore it, for its outcome will have wider effects on the marriage culture that really is our main concern.
Long before there was a debate about same-sex marriage, there was a debate about marriage. It launched a “marriage movement,” to explain why marriage was good for the men and women who were faithful to its demands, and for the children they reared.
Articles in mainstream magazines such as Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s 1993 cover story for The Atlantic, “Dan Quayle was Right,” documented how family fragmentation was wreaking havoc on society. In 1996 Mike and Harriet McManus launched Marriage Savers to combat marital breakdown, and in 2001 Wade Horn championed the Healthy Marriage Initiative for the Bush Administration. Their targets were high divorce rates and the rising birthrate for unmarried women. From pre-Cana programs to various fatherhood initiatives, examples could be multiplied ad nauseam.
Same-sex relationships weren’t on anyone’s radar. (It may be hard to remember, but until just recently same-sex marriage was inconceivable to almost everyone.) The marriage movement leaders’ concern, like that of today’s leading conservative scholars and activists, was much broader.
So it’s not surprising that the leading opponent of redefining marriage today, Maggie Gallagher, was active throughout the ’80s and ’90s in this marriage movement. She wrote a book in the late ‘80s on how the sexual revolution was “killing family, marriage and sex” and “what we [could] do about it;” in a 2000 book she made “the case for marriage,” showing the many ways that marriage is better for couples than cohabitation.
The question of whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships didn’t take center stage until 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court claimed to find a constitutional right to it. Those who had been leading the marriage movement for decades had to ask themselves: Would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages strengthen the marriage culture, or weaken it?
They saw that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships was not ultimately about expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Redefining marriage was about cementing a new idea of marriage in the law—an idea whose baleful effects they had spent years fighting. That idea—that romantic-emotional union is all that makes a marriage—couldn’t explain or support the stabilizing norms that make marriage fitting for family life. It could only undermine those norms.
Indeed, that undermining already had begun. Disastrous policies like “no-fault” divorce, too, were motivated by the idea that a marriage is made by romantic attachment and satisfaction—and comes undone when these fade.
Same-sex marriage would require a more formal and final redefinition of marriage as simple romantic companionship, obliterating the meaning the marriage movement had sought to restore to the institution.
- Comment (164)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (28)
Comments:
Re: Marriage Matters
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Bring data.
This, from the New York Times, comes to mind:
Thanks, Mollie. We cite that, among others, in our book.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace
I'm just one member voice saying, "too much gay marriage talk." · 7 minutes ago
...and threatening to leave if it continues.
In other words, "my way or the highway."
Re: Marriage Matters
Rachel L.
Trace
Rachel L.:
Meanwhile, the sociology doesn't support the assertion that same-sex partners behave exactly like heterosexual spouses. Statistically, they are substantially less likely to achieve the conjugal ideals of faithfulness and permanence. · 29 minutes ago
Bring data. · 1 minute ago
Sure. As a hat-tip to Ryan, I'll send you to this piece on the site he edits, which offers a summary of Mark Regenerus' recent, and very interesting, studies of different family structures. Also look at this article from First Things addressing relevant sociological questions.
There's actually a lot out there on this. I expect Ryan's (and Robert George's) book gets into these questions too. · 32 minutes ago
Edited 28 minutes ago
Thanks, Rachel. There are lots of good pieces on this at Public Discourse. Also see: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6784/ and http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6786/ and http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
But Mollie the study you reference is not of gay marriages, merely relationships. This is exactly my point.
If you were going to restrict the institution from groups whose behaviors seem not to merit its rights, you would surely impose restrictions based on socio-economic factors first.
Which of course is a non-starter. And rightly so, because we want to encourage marriage's positive effects.
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
It does have limits, and yet it's much more solid than every other study on the matter -- which people accept uncritically despite copious methodological problems.
But it looks like you missed my link to a recent study written up in the New York Times about monogamy and fidelity in comment #38. It said "a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many" and that fully half of gay couples studied had sex with outside partners *and* the knowledge of the other half of the couple. No word on what that means with regard to the other half (what percentage is having secret outside sex vs. what percentage is monogamous). · 7 minutes ago
Apr '12
Re: Marriage Matters
But Trace, Regenerus' study (and others -- see the FT article I linked) do seem to suggest that homosexual couplings tend to be less stable and less faithful than heterosexual ones. Even in countries where there are legal forms for same-sex marriage.
Could you argue that homosexual unions are less stable because they are less socially accepted? Sure, of course you could. But here's how I tend to see it. Heterosexual marriage is an institution supported by literally centuries of law, tradition, art and literature, religious and social custom, and all manner of other supports. It is a cornerstone of the survival of society, and its health is absolutely crucial to our collective well-being. That being the case, it doesn't seem we should tinker with it for no good reason. (cont)
Apr '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Now, one can *argue* that same-sex couplings can be morally equivalent to heterosexual couplings, but this is by no means obvious, and such data as we have don't really back the assertion up. If homosexuals want their couplings to be seen as legitimate, maybe they should take it on themselves to start creating the customs, traditions and social mores that would move society as a whole to recognize them. As opposed to, say, pre-emptively dismissing as a bigot anyone who wants to ask reasonable questions about the nature of such a pairing.
Aug '10
Re: Marriage Matters
I disagree with Trace about whether or not gay marriage should be discussed here. This site should allow open debate on whatever the membership wants to talk about, and clearly gay marriage is a major problem for a large number of people.
However, it's also up to each member to decide whether he 'fits' in with the general tone of a place. As a libertarian, I have no problem admitting that I'm a misfit almost anywhere I go, so I can deal with that. However, I strongly believe that opposition to gay marriage is a big-time losing issue for Republicans, and if they stand their ground on it and a few other lost causes, they will continue to lose relevance and power.
If it's truly a moral issue for some Republicans and they can't get past it, then they should stand by their morals and sink with the ship, I guess. That's what I'd do. But what I'll continue to oppose is the attempt to hide moral or religious beliefs behind bad science or bad sociology.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
You seem prepared to defend a right to every opinion but mine.
And just to be clear, I would happily discuss marriage with Mollie all day long. It's discussing it with guys like you that would cause me to quit.
ConservativeWanderer
Trace
I'm just one member voice saying, "too much gay marriage talk." · 7 minutes ago
...and threatening to leave if it continues.
In other words, "my way or the highway." · 1 minute ago
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace: But Mollie the study you reference is not of gay marriages, merely relationships. This is exactly my point.
If you were going to restrict the institution from groups whose behaviors seem not to merit its rights, you would surely impose restrictions based on socio-economic factors first.
That's a significant flaw in the study. To say the least.
That said, it's my (non-sourced) understanding that homosexual men are more likely than heterosexual couples to engage in open marriages/relationships, while lesbians are less likely than heteros. While I think it'd be wrong to dismiss that as unimportant, it does beg the question of how one plans to encourage monogamy among gay couples outside of marriage.
Edited on December 10, 2012 at 11:40pmNov '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Erudite though they may sometimes be, I find them divisive and not constructive to what I deem to be the larger and more important goal of this site -- to broaden the coalition that leads to electoral success for an agenda focused on limiting government.
Trace, the problem which I don't think you quite appreciate is that the very reason why people are voting in increasing numbers for Dems and for statist policies is because of broken families, illegitimacy, high rates of divorce. If marriage is merely a personal relationship (which it was never thought of until very recently), then, certainly, I agree: why not have SSM, or whatever other configuration? But this simply recapitulates the basic Progressive conceptual paradigm of individuals and state. Libertarians in advocating SSM, simply recapitulate this paradigm, and thus simply hasten the very thing to which they are otherwise opposed: ever larger government.
Also: the objection to SSM is not on merely religious grounds. The religious objections are sound only if those objections match up with natural law. For instance it was only based on natural law, natural right, reasoning that otherwise polygamous Utah could enter the Union.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
No one called you a bigot Rachel, relax. But surely there are family arrangements even more pernicious. Single mothers with multiple birth fathers for instance. So why single out this one.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace: You seem prepared to defend a right to every opinion but mine.
And just to be clear, I would happily discuss marriage with Mollie all day long. It's discussing it with guys like you that would cause me to quit.
ConservativeWanderer
Trace
I'm just one member voice saying, "too much gay marriage talk." · 7 minutes ago
...and threatening to leave if it continues.
In other words, "my way or the highway." · 1 minute ago
0 minutes ago
Really?
You said earlier that your "sick of" comment was for the editors. Now you say you'd love to discuss it with Mollie?
And where in this thread have I expressed any feeling on SSM, pro or con? I'm taking issue with your behavior, not your position on SSM.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace: You seem prepared to defend a right to every opinion but mine.
And just to be clear, I would happily discuss marriage with Mollie all day long. It's discussing it with guys like you that would cause me to quit.
ConservativeWanderer
Trace
I'm just one member voice saying, "too much gay marriage talk." · 7 minutes ago
...and threatening to leave if it continues.
In other words, "my way or the highway." · 1 minute ago
1 minute ago
Oh, and I am not threatening to leave over your behavior. Start all the threads you want, that's your privilege -- not right -- as a paying member.
You'll see very quickly that I practice what I preach -- I stay out of threads that don't interest me or that I am "sick of."
Sep '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace--the point is that you want custom and law to make what is best for children happen as often as possible. Of course there will be circumstances that are less than ideal--that's the nature of humanity. Adoption is a very good thing for what you would like to be rare cases where parents can't raise the children they brought into the world. Please don't argue like my teenager, who tends to mischaracterize what I say with an extreme that is not at all what I said. If we as a society would be honest enough to forthrightly acknowledge that it is best for children to be raised by the married man and woman who begot them (and there is plenty of evidence that this is true) and if we were decent enough to understand that the needs of children come before the wants of adults, it would go a long way toward solving these social issues and problems.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Broken families is a big important topic that seems to get very little attention at all. It has nothing to do with whether gay people should be allowed to marry. I never said marriage was merely a personal relationship. Marriage makes families and society stronger. So why discourage it?
Robert Lux
Trace, the problem which I don't think you quite appreciate is that the very reason why people are voting in increasing numbers for Dems and for statist policies is because of broken families, illegitimacy, high rates of divorce. If marriage ismerelya personal relationship (which it was never thought of until very recently), then, certainly, I agree: why not have SSM, or whatever other configuration? But this simply recapitulates the basic Progressive conceptual paradigm of individuals and state. Libertarians in advocating SSM, simply recapitulate this paradigm, and thus simply hasten the very thing to which they are otherwise opposed: ever larger government.
Also: the objection to SSM is not on merely religious grounds. The religious objections are sound only if those objections match up with natural law. For instance it was only based on natural law, natural right, reasoning that otherwise polygamous Utah could enter the Union.
Aug '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Isn't that exactly what they're doing by asking to be bound legally to each other in marriage in the same way that heterosexuals do? What other customs, traditions, and social mores should come first?
I was a photographer at the wedding of two gay friends and you know, the customs looked pretty much exactly like a heterosexual marriage. I was very happy that they were able to make that commitment to each other and maintain the traditions and customs they grew up with, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It seems to me that by denying them those customs, opponents of gay marriage weaken them. As more gay people are forced to live together without the bonds of matrimony, more non-gay people will follow them in solidarity and because they are being sent a message by the state that it's okay to live together even if you're not married.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Extending the institution of marriage for the maximum benefit of children is exactly my point. Perfectly talented and committed heterosexual parents may represent some ideal but many, many fall short. And there are many gay families that are far superior in responsible child-rearing to many hetero families. How does the government pick and choose among the "deserving?" Marriage is a good thing for children. More people should marry.
Nov '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace: Broken families is a big important topic that seems to get very little attention at all. It has nothing to do with whether gay people should be allowed to marry. I never said marriage was merely a personal relationship. Marriage makes families and society stronger. So why discourage it?
Saying that members of the same sex should be allowed to marry -- and if allowed, this will have to be taught as a matter of public teaching (i.e., not just in public schools) -- simply further educates the public in thinking marriage is but a personal relationship. The only conceivable basis on which SSM could ever have arisen is on the basis that marriage is simply a personal relationship; the vaporizing of its public dimension.
More fundamentally, still, however, SSM is all about the vaporizing of the distinctions between men and women; the denial that they have different roles in society. The basic New Natural Law approach fashioned by Robbie George, etc., emphasizing as it does procreation, is correct but incomplete. Marriage rather is fundamentally about harmonizing the different natures of men and women: in a nutshell, it builds up and protects women and civilizes men.
Sep '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Well, for starters, a custom and tradition would be fidelity. As Molly pointed out, gay couples are quietly trying to change this custom and tradition.
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Robert Lux
If marriage is merely a personal relationship (which it was never thought of until very recently), then, certainly, I agree: why not have SSM, or whatever other configuration? But this simply recapitulates the basic Progressive conceptual paradigm of individuals and state.
Unless I've missed something, no one on this thread has even attempted to advocate that position. Do you disagree?