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
So which does more harm to the institution of marriage KC, divorce or expanding its definition? Why no impassioned post in favor of outlawing divorce, or making it more difficult?
KC Mulville
With respect I disagree.
If there's one thing that conservatives talk about, it's that sooner or later, society has to say No.
American culture doesn't prepare anyone for marriage. Marriage is a commitment to a shared life - good and bad. Instead, we tell them that marriage is about keeping the romance alive.
If my spouse is a jerk, or I "need more," can't we just end it so we can be happy?
If you can't accept No, don't get married. · 2 hours ago
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Marriage as a building block for society is an unparalleled success. So we should use it to further enfranchise those that are left out and bind them more closely to productive society.
I have yet to see anyone really flesh out the concept of how the institution becomes weakened. Rachel L. intimated that gay people wouldn't respect the institution because one study shows they cheat more in dating relationships. I don't buy that and don't believe the data makes the case strongly enough, but at least it is something concrete that goes beyond "change is bad."
KC Mulville:
I'm willing to haggle and have a conversation about whether society should come to a new agreement about what is and isn't marriage ... society should always reflect on its foundations. But if we begin these conversations, as they're currently doing in the mainstream media and the Democrat Party, by casually dismissing the tradition of ten thousand years as such "obvious" bigotry and stupidity, then the word hubris isn't strong enough. · 7 hours ago
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
You are missing three things Mollie:
1) Most of us are not paid to comment and have our limits.
2) This is one of the only places within Ricochet where there is strong disagreement, and so the discussion has a different and less pleasant tenor. Your "discussion of consequences" feels very much like bickering that breaks down hard won community.
3) The opponents of SSM marriage generally count this as a Top 5 issue while the defenders would probably count in in their Top 25. So the vigor is not evenly matched. You want advocates who won't tire easily? Then match our SSM opponents against some liberal proponents -- that would be a fair fight and contain plenty of "vigor."
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Why do proponents of changing marriage law tire so easily? What am I missing? And why is the only thing tiring regarding the rush to change marriage law thediscussionof consequences? Shouldn't that be discussed with vigor?
If it tires one to even consider the effects of change, shouldn't that be a warning against the rush?
I feel I must be missing something. · 3 hours ago
Sep '10
Re: Marriage Matters
The historical evidence is rather overwhelming.
Re: Marriage Matters
KC Mulville
American culture doesn't prepare anyone for marriage. Marriage is a commitment to a shared life - good and bad. Instead, we tell them that marriage is about keeping the romance alive.
If my spouse is a jerk, or I "need more," can't we just end it so we can be happy?
If you can't accept No, don't get married. · 8 hours ago
That's such an oversimplification it can only be termed avoidance.
We have contributors even claiming proponents of SSM won't discuss matters, but this issue, which is ABSOLUTELY the heart of Ryan's post, is intentionally ignored by "marriage traditionalists" (a gross misnomer since their views are a modern contrivance).
I'd do a separate post about it but no one would comment.
Fear. It stops conversation.
Edited on December 11, 2012 at 2:53pmJan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Tommy De Seno
We have contributors even claiming proponents of SSM won't discuss matters, but this issue, which is ABSOLUTELY the heart of Ryan's post, is intentionally ignored by "marriage traditionalists" (a gross misnomer since their views are a modern contrivance).
I'd do a separate post about it but no one would comment.
Fear. It stops conversation.
You accuse others of not addressing "the" issue - - then you don't address it either, but assure us that you would have, only we're not ready to listen? Who's avoiding things, Tommy?
Let's cut to the chase. Tell us what you think we're all avoiding.
Re: Marriage Matters
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno
We have contributors even claiming proponents of SSM won't discuss matters, but this issue, which is ABSOLUTELY the heart of Ryan's post, is intentionally ignored by "marriage traditionalists" (a gross misnomer since their views are a modern contrivance).
I'd do a separate post about it but no one would comment.
Fear. It stops conversation.
You accuse others of not addressing "the" issue - - then you don't address it either, but assure us that you would have, only we're not ready to listen? Who's avoiding things, Tommy?
Let's cut to the chase. Tell us what you think we're all avoiding.
I have addressed it. I said I'd avoid doing a post expanding upon it.
Let's say your daughter comes home and tells you that her husband continues to be a bread winner. But he's decided he has no respect for her, won't interact with her except for occasionally having sex, and refuses to speak to her otherwise. This has gone on for 2 years and he has no intention of changing.
Should she be allowed a divorce?
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
Pseudodionysius
The historical evidence is rather overwhelming. · 43 minutes ago
Did you mean to agree with me or contradict me? I'm confused.
Romantic love as a concept is certainly ancient. But I was not looking to debate the Aeneid or even Shakespeare, but merely to note than in the popular culture of the 19th and early 20th century there is ample evidence that "marrying for love" is a high ideal.
Perhaps this was the "beginning of the end," but I find this argument rather esoteric and off-point. The "decline of marriage" that really matters is among lower socio-economic classes where it is symptomatic of a cycle of poverty and welfare dependency.
Charles Murray's explanation for this is far more persuasive and ties it class economics. Indeed marriage seems to be on the upswing among the economically privileged. So the idea that gay marriage is the "last straw" I think does not ring true.
The more meaningful distinction is not between gay and straight but between Fishtown and Belmont. The gay people I know personally resemble members of their class and are forming families that behave very much like heterosexual families of the same class.
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace, marriage is so good as a building block because it enshrines certain principles. We talk about the connection between marriage, family, and children. Those aren't just separate pieces that happen to occur. They're integral to each other.
The essence of family is that Love produces Life. A child knows that he's loved, not just because his parents are currently doing things for him, but because his very existence came from their love. And because they still love each other, there's an ontological connection between their continued love and his continued worth and value as a human being that he can rely on.
Divorce destroys that.
The problem with same-sex marriage is that for all the good intentions of the couple, their love can't produce life. No child can come from a same-sex relationship.
When it comes to raising children, no one doubts that gay people can love. But there can't be an ontological connection between their love and the child. That's what makes child-producing marriage different.
SSM proponents demand completely equal treatment and respect, but it can't be the same.
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Tommy De Seno
Let's say your daughter comes home and tells you that her husband continues to be a bread winner. But he's decided he has no respect for her, won't interact with her except for occasionally having sex, and refuses to speak to her otherwise. This has gone on for 2 years and he has no intention of changing.
Should she be allowed a divorce?
No.
Re: Marriage Matters
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno
Let's say your daughter comes home and tells you that her husband continues to be a bread winner. But he's decided he has no respect for her, won't interact with her except for occasionally having sex, and refuses to speak to her otherwise. This has gone on for 2 years and he has no intention of changing.
Should she be allowed a divorce?
No. · 2 minutes ago
The following year she comes home and says for the past 12 months, he will only refer to her as "fat pig." When she has friends over he curses at them and tells them to leave the pig's pen, which they do.
Now does she get a divorce?
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
KC Mulville:
Trace, marriage is so good as a building block because it enshrines certain principles. We talk about the connection between marriage, family, and children. Those aren't just separate pieces that happen to occur. They're integral to each other.
The essence of family is that Love produces Life...
The problem with same-sex marriage is that for all the good intentions of the couple, their love can't produce life. No child can come from a same-sex relationship.
When it comes to raising children, no one doubts that gay people can love. But there can't be an ontological connection between their love and the child. That's what makes child-producing marriage different.
SSM proponents demand completely equal treatment and respect, but it can't be the same.
So any childless marriage -- even one where a hetero couple plans to have children, but hasn't yet -- doesn't actually count?
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
But again this argument while cogent, is esoteric.
There are children that are the consequence of gay unions whether through surrogacy or adoption. In the case of adoption these couples are performing a tremendous service to society. So isn't denying the benefits and symbolism of marriage to them and their children making the perfect the enemy of the good?
KC Mulville:
The problem with same-sex marriage is that for all the good intentions of the couple, their love can't produce life. No child can come from a same-sex relationship.
When it comes to raising children, no one doubts that gay people can love. But there can't be an ontological connection between their love and the child. That's what makes child-producing marriage different.
SSM proponents demand completely equal treatment and respect, but it can't be the same. · 8 minutes ago
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Tommy De Seno
Now does she get a divorce?
You can increase the cruelty of the circumstances all you want, but you're missing the point. The point is not whether they should get divorced, but whether they should have gotten married in the first place ... and what the culture should be doing to prepare them for that magnitude of commitment.
And if it turns out that he was never suited for a married life, then his consent to the marriage was a fraud. The marriage should be annulled; meaning, the agreement to be one was never there. The consent never existed.
And, Tommy, that's the point ... we're talking here about what marriage is, and should be. If you immediately concoct a hypothetical about what marriage isn't, or what happens when it fails, that shouldn't dictate what we think marriage should be.
Quite the contrary, that should fill us with resolve to make sure the wreckage of a non-marriage doesn't happen to anyone. And that's why we focus on what marriage, in its core and essence, really is.
Re: Marriage Matters
KC Mulville
Tommy De Seno
Now does she get a divorce?
You can increase the cruelty of the circumstances all you want, but you're missing the point. The point is not whether they should get divorced, but whether they should have gotten married in the first place ... and what the culture should be doing to prepare them for that magnitude of commitment.
And if it turns out that he was never suited for a married life, then his consent to the marriage was a fraud. The marriage should be annulled; meaning, the agreement to be one was never there. The consent never existed.
And, Tommy, that's the point ... we're talking here about what marriage is, and should be. If you immediately concoct a hypothetical about what marriage isn't, or what happens when it fails, that shouldn't dictate what we think marriage should be.
Quite the contrary, that should fill us with resolve to make sure the wreckage of a non-marriage doesn't happen to anyone. And that's why we focus on what marriage, in its core and essence, really is. · 2 minutes ago
But all that couple really had was an irreconcilable difference.
May '10
Re: Marriage Matters
KC Mulville:
The essence of family is that Love produces Life. A child knows that he's loved, not just because his parents are currently doing things for him, but because his very existence came from their love. And because they still love each other, there's an ontological connection between their continued love and his continued worth and value as a human being that he can rely on.
Divorce destroys that.
So does a loveless marriage. So does abusive parenting. So do myriad other dysfunctional situations where biological perfection is confounded by human fallibility. There are significant numbers of bad parents who are far inferior to responsible and good gay parents.
At the very apex of perfection, perhaps your theory is correct. But in the real world of real people and real relationships, it's all mixed together and I see well parented and happy children that are the result of gay unions and poorly-parented, troubled children that are the result of biological but disinterested parents.
Sep '10
Re: Marriage Matters
DIVORCE MENTALITY MUST BE COMBATED, INSISTS JOHN PAUL II
For those Catholic lawyers following the thread, of course.
Jul '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
If it tires one to even consider the effects of change, shouldn't that be a warning against the rush?Why do proponents of changing marriage law tire so easily? What am I missing? And why is the only thing tiring regarding the rush to change marriage law thediscussionof consequences? Shouldn't that be discussed with vigor?
I feel I must be missing something.
Re: Marriage Matters
Trace
KC Mulville:
Divorce destroys that.
So does a loveless marriage. So does abusive parenting. So do myriad other dysfunctional situations where biological perfection is confounded by human fallibility. There are significant numbers of bad parents who are far inferior to responsible and good gay parents.
At the very apex of perfection, perhaps your theory is correct. But in the real world of real people and real relationships, it's all mixed together and I see well parented and happy children that are the result of gay unions and poorly-parented, troubled children that are the result of biological but disinterested parents.
Perfect, Trace.
Marriage traditionalists (modernists, really) have put stock in some cosmic connection between a single marriage and the rest of us and have artificially inflated the stock price.
Marriage is primarily between the couple, and for we religious types between us and God.
Bowing to socialism, modern governments have used the relationship to raise money, deluding today's modern conservative into the mistaken impression that they have a proprietary interest in my private, religious relationship.
Jan '11
Re: Marriage Matters
Tom Meyer
So any childless marriage -- even one where a hetero couple plans to have children, but hasn't yet -- doesn't actually count?
As we've said before ... marriage is when society treats the couple as one. Society has traditionally had two dimensions, both of which are necessary, but neither of which is sufficient. The first is that the couple loves each other, and the second is that they produce and raise a family.
If a couple wants to do both when they get married, traditionally society respects them as married, even if one or both of the dimensions don't work out.
If a couple wants to have children but it turns out they can't, society still respects them as married. (After all, when they made the commitment, they intended to start a family.)