On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Princeton Professor Robert P. George wrote an essay on marriage law that I've been noodling over since I read it last week. It begins:
It was only yesterday, was it not, that we were being assured that the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships would have no impact on persons and institutions that hold to the traditional view of marriage as a conjugal union? Such persons and institutions would simply be untouched by the change. It won’t affect your marriage or your life, we were told, if the law recognizes Henry and Herman or Sally and Sheila as “married.”
Those offering these assurances were also claiming that the redefinition of marriage would have no impact on the public understanding of marriage as a monogamous and sexually exclusive partnership. No one, they insisted, wanted to alter those traditional marital norms. On the contrary, the redefinition of marriage would promote and spread those norms more broadly.
He recalls how some people thought the claims were hogwash, but were accused of "fearmongering" or engaging in "slippery-slope reasoning." Everyone was told that changing marriage law wouldn't affect anyone but gay couples. Religious non-profits wouldn't be forced to place foster or adopted children in same-sex households. No one would require religious schools or social service agencies to treat same-sex partners as spouses or face penalties. And no one was suggesting that open relationships be normalized.
That was then; this is now.
I must say, though, that I still can’t fathom why anybody believed any of it—even then. The whole argument was and is that the idea of marriage as the union of husband and wife lacks a rational basis and amounts to nothing more than “bigotry.” Therefore, no reasonable person of goodwill can dissent from the liberal position on sex and marriage, any more than a reasonable person of goodwill could support racial segregation and subordination. And this, because marriage, according to the redefiners, consists principally of the emotional union of people committed to mutual affection and care. Any distinctions beyond this one they condemn as baseless.
Since most liberals and even some conservatives, it seems, apparently have no understanding at all of the conjugal conception of marriage as a one-flesh union—not even enough of a grasp to consciously consider and reject it—they uncritically conceive marriage as sexual-romantic domestic partnership, as if it just couldn’t possibly be anything else. This is despite the fact that the conjugal conception has historically been embodied in our marriage laws, and explains their content (not just the requirement of spousal sexual complementarity, but also rules concerning consummation and annulability, norms of monogamy and sexual exclusivity, and the pledge of permanence of commitment) in ways that the sexual-romantic domestic partnership conception simply cannot. Still, having adopted the sexual-romantic domestic partnership idea, and seeing no alternative possible conception of marriage, they assume—and it is just that, an assumption, and a gratuitous one—that no actual reason exists for regarding sexual reproductive complementarity as integral to marriage. After all, two men or two women can have a romantic interest in each other, live together in a sexual partnership, care for each other, and so forth. So why can’t they be married? Those who think otherwise, having no rational basis, discriminate invidiously. By the same token, if two men or two women can be married, why can’t three or more people, irrespective of sex, in polyamorous “triads,” “quadrads,” etc.? Since no reason supports the idea of marriage as a male-female union or a partnership of two persons and not more, the motive of those insisting on these other “traditional” norms must also be a dark and irrational one.
And so those who support redefining marriage to include same-sex unions are becoming more open about their view that these disputes aren't honest disagreements among reasonable people of goodwill. No, it's the battle between reason, enlightenment and equality against bigotry and discrimination. And even though American voters routinely support defining marriage as a heterosexual union of two partners, their error was in thinking that they could strike a reasonable "grand bargain" with those who want marriage redefined.
In other words, if only Americans would accept a legal redefinition of marriage, those who believe marriage is a conjugal union wouldn't be discriminated against. But, as George points out, such a grand bargain was never possible.
The lesson, it seems to me, for those of us who believe that the conjugal conception of marriage is true and good, and who wish to protect the rights of our faithful and of our institutions to honor that belief in carrying out their vocations and missions, is that there is no alternative to winning the battle in the public square over the legal definition of marriage. The “grand bargain” is an illusion we should dismiss from our minds.
Of course, with sexual liberalism now so powerfully entrenched in the established institutions of the elite sector of our culture (and, let us not kid ourselves, fully embraced by the President of the United States and the leadership of the Democratic Party), some view the defense of marriage as a lost cause. I think that is another mistake—one that sexual liberals have every reason to encourage their opponents to make, and ample resources to promote. We’ve all heard the argument (or taunt): “The acceptance of same-sex marriage on a national scale is inevitable. It’s a done deal. You had better get on the right side of history, lest you be remembered in the company of Orval Faubus.”
George says it's possible that this is true but he reminds people of other inevitable arguments. The "right" to kill unborn children was supposed to be settled in the mid-70s. But far more Americans are pro-life now than were then.
And eugenics was embraced by all the elites in the 1920s and 1930s. That includes churches and the Supreme Court. Everyone agreed that we needed "social hygiene" as they euphemistically called it. Only the most backward religious people seemed to have a problem with it. Only the most backward religious folks were on the "wrong side of history" as progressives put it.
Now, maybe it's true that marriage as a conjugal union of man and wife is done for. But the inevitability arguments have been made before on other hot-button issues, too.
He concludes:
Same-sex marriage and the assaults on liberty and equality that follow in its wake are “inevitable” only if defenders of marriage make their adversaries’ prophecies self-fulfilling ones, by buying into them.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Mollie - your second para, "slipper-slope" should be "slippery-slope" (as in source article).
Dec '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
To grasp the conjugal view of marriage I recommend reading his paper on the subject. Long read, worth the time.
Feb '12
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
The current marriage debate is a perfect illustration of the Regime of Tolerance in action, where "compromise" is a euphemism for "acceptance," and there are no rational bases to judge behavior.
I think Strauss said it best "Only unlimited tolerance is in accordance with reason."
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Thanks!
Jun '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
I agree. It's a tightly-reasoned argument. And they specifically created an argument that does no rely on a religious creed.
Dec '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
tabula rasa
I agree. It's a tightly-reasoned argument. And they specifically created an argument that does no rely on a religious creed. · 0 minutes ago
Huzzah! Of the dozen or so times I've linked that paper I have confirmation that at least one other person has read it! But seriously, one cannot make a reasoned case in favor of SSM (I'm looking at you Tommy) without dealing with the arguments it presents. Confronted with a very plausible argument that marriage is an existential moral reality with a specific set of defining characteristics, the arguments most often used in favor of SSM boil down to the tantrums of toddlers.
Dec '11
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Same sex marriage makes about as much sense to me as non-dairy creamer. Where is the cream in the non-dairy and where is the marriage in the same sex? People can argue that non-dairy cream is better than the real thing but does anyone really think it is cream. I understand people are in relationships that they feel good about but do they really believe they are in a real marriage.
My other problem with "SSM" is that it is too rational. A real marriage is filled with craziness/saneness from a spouse. I put the slash in because what one spouse can view as crazy the other spouse can consider common sense therefore sane. Balancing these irrational different perspectives is a big part of marriage. I cannot see how two men or two women can truly complement each other in this way. I can see how two of the same sex can work together but in marriage spouses of each sex are seemingly opposing and helping at the same time. Why or how this works is a mystery?
Anyone know the answer to this mystery yet?
Edited on July 23, 2012 at 5:55pmApr '12
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
I've been making this argument for awhile. The same-sex marriage debate is not over, any more than the abortion debate was effectively over in the 1970's. It's going to be long and bitter, but the upside is that, like the abortion issue, this one may draw ordinary people into salutary reflections about the value of life and family and commitment. I know many folks around here get impatient with this issue ("it's about the economy, stupid!") and I understand the reasons for that, but mark my words: in the coming years, this is going to be the issue that gets conservatives fired, prosecuted or otherwise persecuted. So, it's worth working out what you really think about it.
Jan '11
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Don't worry! When they decided Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, they assured us that allowing contraceptives only applied to married couples. (Made available to everyone in 1972 in Eisenstadt v. Baird.)
Don't worry! When they decided Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, they assured us that nothing in that decision would lead to the suspicion that the Court doubted the legitimacy of the state's right to preserve traditional marriage. (Took less than a year for Massachusetts to allow gay marriage, citing Lawrence v. Texas.)
Dec '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
There is a whole other can of worms opened up by this because of the indoctrination of our children. My own son is completely sold on the SSM "fairness" arguments, and my neices are likewise. These are strong Christian children. This is why making the philosophical argument about the existential reality of marriage is the only way forward.
Nov '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
I know exactly how Prof. George feels, as I too used to be one of those libertarian-leaning conservatives who believed in the so-called "grand bargain." I was willing to accept SSM, and indeed viewed it as a logical outcome of the very concept of secular marriage, as long as two conditions were met: It had to be passed by the legislative branch and protections for religious institutions must be made explicit in the letter of the law itself.
The SSM movement lost me when it became painfully clear that they were not interested in either of these conditions. The worst part of it was when someone I considered a friend seemed flabbergasted at the very idea that forcing religious institutions to recognize gay couples was somehow a bad thing.
If SSM is imposed on the whole nation, I give it five years at most before some couple tries to sue because they want a church wedding, and practically every person who now swears that SSM will not affect anyone else's rights will be cheering that couple on.
Apr '11
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Once the definition of marriage is NOT one man and one woman then it becomes open ended. "Marriage" is anything anybody can make it by legal action, argument, and pop culture. The polygamous religions understand this which why they are pursuing court cases to include polygamy under the definition. For example:
http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/memorandum-order-sister-wives.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95491308/Sister-Wives-Dismiss-Motion-053112
Dec '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
I spoke with a congressional candidate for my district on Friday who leans more to the libertarian "government completely out of marriage" view. He can't grasp the social good that marriage is. I'm all for limiting government as much as possible, but the perpetuation civil society passes my own strict scrutiny test. His position is tempting, but I think it also immature. I passed through it on the way to the truth.
Apr '11
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Coming up on Washington State 2012 general election ballot.
Referendum 74
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/06/ref-74-anti-gay-marriage-measure-qualifies-for-ballot/
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Well, this is actually my view. Ideally, I think marriage would be a strong social institution (much stronger than it is currently) and that the government just wouldn't be involved (outside of however courts deal with the attendant issues).
But the fact is that literally no one is seriously arguing for this. It's not what a push for SSM is. That's the opposite of having the state get out of the marriage biz. It's having the state redefine marriage away from what it is.
And that's something that is probably tied with, somehow, an even larger government encroachment into the lives of people and their institutions.
Apr '11
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Molly,
As a libertarian, what role do you think the federal gov't has in supporting traditional marriage? Should extricate itself from it and defer it to the states?
Nov '11
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Thanks to all for food for thought and prayer!
Dec '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Well, this is actually my view. Ideally, I think marriage would be a strong social institution (much stronger than it is currently) and that the government just wouldn't be involved (outside of however courts deal with the attendant issues).
That was essentially how marriage was treated right up to the point when certain groups started asking government to intervene against civil society on their behalf. Now that civil society and its institution are under assualt, and government is being asked to arbitrate the dispute, how should government call the play? Does government have a greater interest in equality and fairness or in protecting the cornerstone institution of civilization that makes perpetuation of civil society possible?
Apr '12
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
Exactly right, King Prawn. The "government should stay out of marriage" position is kind of a mirage. The truth is that "attendant issues" were all anyone ever really wanted the government to handle (it's not like we were clamoring for the state to send us anniversary cards or run "recover the intimacy" retreats) but in order to do that effectively, the relevant concept is marriage. Refusing to call a spade a spade always carries some cost, whether through loss of efficiency, increase in injustice, or the undermining of the institution of marriage itself. And often all three.
Think of it this way. When someone tells you, "Happy news: Jack and Jill are getting married!", do you ask whether the speaker means a legal, social or religious marriage? No, because modern "innovations" notwithstanding, we still feel like we basically know what marriage is, and it's only the "fringe cases" that lead us to question this. If the state downgrades the legally relevant arrangement to a "domestic partnership" or whatever, that will further contribute to the dissolution of that mighty concept which still holds great power over even liberals' modes of thought. That's not a good thing.
Oct '10
Re: On The Supposed Inevitability of Abortion, Eugenics and Same-Sex Marriage
I've come to agree with Professor George's analysis of the political situation. If you propose a truly socially conservative version of gay marriage to a liberal, he/she will reject it. Reasonable versions of SSM are simply not on the table at this time.
People wonder why I try to convince social conservatives that SSM can be a good thing. I do so because I agree with them that the liberals' version of SSM is unacceptable, and I hope to build support, little by little, for a more socially-conservative version of it (with monogamy requirements, religious and civil society protections, etc).
Edited on July 23, 2012 at 10:13pm