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:
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
You're right. It was an obnoxious construction and I was wrong to position my lack of enthusiasm in the form of a threat. But when I join the battle in these threads, as I periodically feel obliged to do, I am invariably piled on by members which leads me to focus on what I do not have in common with them and discourages me from the entire enterprise. I wanted to express that but obviously am in the minority.
ConservativeWanderer
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." · 11 minutes ago
Aug '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Do you accept that there are gay people in the world? If so, do you accept that some of them are going to live together in committed relationships? If so do you also agree that some of them are going to have children, either through adoption, pregnancy (some gay people do occasionally have hetero sex), or from a previous hetero relationship?
That's the subgroup of people we're talking about: Gay people who are or want to be in committed relationships. Given those parameters, isn't it better if they be allowed to marry, thus creating legal bonds between them that will make their relationship more stable and provide a better home for any children that may be involved?
Most of the arguments here are starting from the position that gay families are not as desirable as heterosexual families, but have yet to offer proof that allowing gay marriage affects heterosexual marriage at all.
Nov '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Tom Meyer
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? · 3 minutes ago
It's implicit, consciously or not, in the claim that same-sex marriage can ever be allowed.
Nov '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Robert Lux
Tom Meyer
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? · 3 minutes ago
It's implicit, consciously or not, in the claim that same-sex marriage can ever be allowed. · 0 minutes ago
In other words, it descends from the notion -- pervasive in thinking today -- that marriage is but a social construct.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace: You're right. It was an obnoxious construction and I was wrong to position my lack of enthusiasm in the form of a threat. But when I join the battle in these threads, as I periodically feel obliged to do, I am invariably piled on by members which leads me to focus on what I do not have in common with them and discourages me from the entire enterprise. I wanted to express that but obviously am in the minority.
ConservativeWanderer
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." · 11 minutes ago
5 minutes ago
And you're ignoring the dichotomy over you saying that your statements regarding leaving were for the editors, and then saying that you'd be happy to discuss it with Mollie but not people like me.
So who is forcing you to jump into these threads? If you don't wanna be "piled on," stay away from them.
Sep '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace--that's exactly what I'm saying. Gay families are not as desirable because it is by far the best thing for children to have a mother and a father, as often as possible the ones who made them. That's the paradigm that has proven to be best for millenia. That's why I cited the Regnerus study. That's what it says. I hope you will admit that this other social experiment is very new. Let Canada experiment with it (and some states.) Look, I raised 5 kids. Their father has been very, very important to them and to me. I hope that I have been very important to them. And trust me, we have brought very different masculine and feminine qualities to our parenting. I think it worked out very, very well. Hey--Rachel L is my daughter and I couldn't be prouder! I think we do children a great disservice if we do anything to make them less likely to have a mother and a father. I already said that other less ideal things will happen, but this is about promoting what is best in law and custom. Lets not experiment on children.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
ConservativeWanderer
And you're ignoring the dichotomy over you saying that your statements regarding leaving were for the editors, and then saying that you'd be happy to discuss it with Mollie but not people like me.
So who is forcing you to jump into these threads? If you don't wanna be "piled on," stay away from them. · 0 minutes ago
Again CW, you're right. I care about the issue and feel obliged to jump in periodically. But it is not a pleasant experience. Because the argument frequently become pointed -- not from Mollie but from other members. (I'm sure that's my fault too, so I'll just apologize in advance for that as well.)
I just finished listening to Ender's Game on audiobook (supporting the sponsors) and I feel like Ender Wiggins: obliged to fight the battle, but so very weary of it. And wishing the higher ups would slow down the pace of ever more battles.
That was the point of my comment: did we really need a new contributor who has written a new book attacking SSM? That feels like an editorial bias to which I object.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace
Again CW, you're right. I care about the issue and feel obliged to jump in periodically. But it is not a pleasant experience. Because the argument frequently become pointed -- not from Mollie but from other members. (I'm sure that's my fault too, so I'll just apologize in advance for that as well.)
I just finished listening toEnder's Gameon audiobook (supporting the sponsors) and I feel like Ender Wiggins: obliged to fight the battle, but so very weary of it. And wishing the higher ups would slow down the pace of ever more battles.
That was the point of my comment: did we really need a new contributor who has written a new book attacking SSM? That feels like an editorial bias to which I object. · 1 minute ago
Once again, if you're weary of it, don't engage in the thread.
If you feel that it's an editorial bias, the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of every page on this website gives you an email address for feedback, so that you can make your feelings known without being "piled on."
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace
That was the point of my comment: did we really need a new contributor who has written a new book attacking SSM? That feels like an editorial bias to which I object. · 7 minutes ago
I'd like to move on from this particular battle but have we really had other contributors who've written books on SSM? Even though I want to move on from this particular battle between CW and T (sorry guys!), I ask because I'm writing up something separately about how books critical of SSM are treated in the mainstream media.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Trace
That was the point of my comment: did we really need a new contributor who has written a new book attacking SSM? That feels like an editorial bias to which I object. · 7 minutes ago
I'd like to move on from this particular battle but have we really had other contributors who've written books on SSM? Even though I want to move on from this particular battle between CW and T (sorry guys!), I ask because I'm writing up something separately about how books critical of SSM are treated in the mainstream media. · 0 minutes ago
As you wish, Mollie. I believe I've made my points adequately anyway. :)
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Ha! Well we haven't had contributors that have written books about a lot of things. And we certainly have not had anyone that has written a book defending SSM. But you put up your post Mollie and I promise neither to comment nor to quit ;-)
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Trace
That was the point of my comment: did we really need a new contributor who has written a new book attacking SSM? That feels like an editorial bias to which I object. · 7 minutes ago
I'd like to move on from this particular battle but have we really had other contributors who've written books on SSM? Even though I want to move on from this particular battle between CW and T (sorry guys!), I ask because I'm writing up something separately about how books critical of SSM are treated in the mainstream media. · 0 minutes ago
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace: But Mollie the study you reference is not of gay marriages, merely relationships. This is exactly my point.
55 minutes ago
Well, what you asked for evidence of was Rachel L's contention that "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. ·"
And the study I linked to does speak to that.
Statistically speaking, we have very very little data on same-sex parenting and marriage. That Regnerus study was the best when it comes to stats significance and the limits to even that are pretty huge.
Data is not necessarily as helpful here because of small sample size and other methodological problems.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Well, what you asked for evidence of was Rachel L's contention that "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. ·"
And the study I linked to does speak to that.
Statistically speaking, we have very very little data on same-sex parenting and marriage. That Regnerus study was the best when it comes to stats significance and the limits to even that are pretty huge.
Data is not necessarily as helpful here because of small sample size and other methodological problems. · 1 minute ago
The data's lack of helpfulness cuts both ways in this debate. And I understand well the context of the cited study but again insist that it does not then follow that marriage is not a positive influence.
Marriage represents a bourgeois value and as Charles Murray so eloquently points out, bourgeois values are good for society.
Jan '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Turnabout is fair game. Defend with hard data the following bolded assertions.
These assertions are also arguments from silence or anecdote. If your position is empirically based, then why should you care if the arrangement is called civil union or marriage? Do you think SSM activists are non-empirical when they push for the second after achieving the first? Your policy preferences may be correct, but they are no more empirically based than those you sharply criticize as being non-empirical. The Danish marriage rate being correlated with regularization of SSM (as another person commented) is weak evidence at best.
Harm may come in two forms. One is making male-female couples less likely to have children in permanent, faithful relationships. Another is undermining attempts to reverse that trend. One dismantles while the other entrenches. There are problems with this argument, but a a lack of empiricism isn't it.
Apr '12
Re: Marriage Matters
Thanks, Mom. :) You and Dad were great parents. And you know, thinking about that, it occurs to me that there might be a reason why this comes up more on Ricochet than on some other conservative sites. The GOP has stuck to traditional marriage because they know where their votes come from, but a lot of the top people are fairly cool on that position. The base, by contrast, cares about it a lot. A place like Ricochet, that draws ordinary folks into the discussion, is liable to get more marriage talk than a place like National Review. Honestly, among guests and contributors, Ryan is a rarity; there haven't been a lot of prominent social conservatives coming through here.
Jun '12
Re: Marriage Matters
You might be on to something, there.
Also, there are far fewer lefty trolls here than other places, which might be another factor in why these discussions pop up on Ricochet more often. You're not likely to start such a discussion on a forum where you're likely to be decried as a homophobe, bigot, religious fanatic, and/or neanderthal, but here, where it's pretty much all us conservatives together, it might not be as scary.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Well to be technical here, the original post was asserting the harm of SSM marriage, so it is not my side that is obliged to supply the data.
But you're right -- the lack of data cuts both ways. And so I have to revert to what I can see and attest to. Which is that I see good parenting and bad parenting (in my opinion) and as a parent am more inclined to believe that judgement and skill and devotion matters as much or more to the well being of the children in these arrangements as the sex of the responsible adults doing the parenting.
Beyond this I see the energy devoted to "defending marriage" and note that the energy seems excessive relative to the harm as compared to the issues of divorce and unwed mothers which seem to have a far more obviously pernicious effect on society.
Re: Marriage Matters
There wasn't data back then; it's a conceptual question. Which is why I phrased it that way:
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.
Trace
Well to be technical here, the original post was asserting the harm of SSM marriage, so it is not my side that is obliged to supply the data.
...
Beyond this I see the energy devoted to "defending marriage" and note that the energy seems excessive relative to the harm as compared to the issues of divorce and unwed mothers which seem to have a far more obviously pernicious effect on society. · 27 minutes ago
Re: Marriage Matters
Ryan T. Anderson, Guest Contributor:
One word on no-fault divorce. The point of raising the issue isn’t to litigate here a better divorce policy. Rather, it’s to show that law shapes culture, culture shapes behavior, and behavior results in human flourishing or suffering. Changes in marriage law will change the way people behave, in unexpected ways, for better or worse—which is why we have reason to want the state to get marriage right. · 2 hours ago
I note you go from your first sentence - which states that it is not your intention to litigate a better divorce policy, to you last sentence - where you hold that we better get changes in marriage law right.
How do you suppose we achieve the latter without first doing the former?
Edited on December 11, 2012 at 1:45amRe: Marriage Matters
ConservativeWanderer
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.
[NOTE: This was directed at Trace].
Dear Trace,
Hang in there, cugino.
I've read this thread and know of your frustration. Look at CW's statement. The entire time he was not here to comment on SSM. He was here to comment on you personally.
I've been there. It's frustrating when you constantly get pulled from substance to defend yourself with no intercession by an editor.
Don't leave or stop commenting. Use it as a reason to stay on topic and comment more.