The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
My husband couldn't get over the light and breezy coverage of Ryan Lochte's mother saying her son has one-night stands. She said this on national television and the media covered it but seemed to have no problem with it. My husband said he feels like up is down. Why, he wonders, do the media revile an athlete like Tim Tebow for attempting to be virtuous but celebrate Lochte for announcing he's not?
One of the things that was so striking about the Million Mouth March (as Jon Stewart called the Chick-fil-A "eat-in") was that it showed that many people strongly believe in things that the media ignore or deliberately hide. They are sick of government overreach and violations of free speech. They are sick of being bullied about same-sex marriage. And they are sick of having traditional values mocked and denigrated. (And, yes, maybe they just like perfectly fried chicken sandwiches.)
The media routinely characterize belief that marriage is sacred -- and that it's a conjugal union, that it should not be dissolved, that it is a blessing if it includes children -- as homophobic or bigoted or retrograde or unloving.
And while that characterization and bullying has been remarkably effective at pushing public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage, at what cost I wonder? This week has been very difficult for activists who support same-sex marriage. Here are three examples:
A mainstream media reporter published on his public Facebook page all sorts of things. Typical stuff -- his hatred for Mitt Romney. His strong support of Barack Obama. His belief that the HHS mandate is no big deal. His hatred for Chick-fil-A. But then it turned out that he was covering the Chick-fil-A eat-in for his paper. He put on Facebook that he'd never felt as much like an alien in his country as he did that day. He claimed he saw things that differed greatly from other reports around the country. He claimed that people were racist, homophobic and speaking ill of immigrants (but that when he asked for their names, they conveniently declined). He went on to mock the protesters for taking "such a brave stand ... eating a [expletive] sandwich." The comment thread to his post is full of people mocking rednecks and Christians and FoxNews. They plot how to physically attack Chick-fil-A locations, etc.
His editor got wind of the very public meltdown and reprimanded him.
Or what about the bully who went after a Chick-fil-A drive-thru worker and then, inexplicably, posted his boorish behavior on the internet for all to see? His employer also reprimanded him. Actually, his employer fired him. He was an executive at the company and had reflected poorly on it.
When I wrote about my experience at Chick-fil-A and media coverage of same, many of my readers expressed dismay that the media could cover it as anything other than bigoted jerks who seethe with hatred for their fellow man. To them it was self-evident. Take this note from a leftist site that a reader posted to show me how awful I was. A lesbian in Tucson drove by an insanely crowded Chick-fil-A and recorded the following reaction:
My reaction surprised me. It felt like all those people—young men in pickup trucks, moms with kids, older couples—were stepping on my chest. It felt like hidden bigotry had come out to make itself known. It felt like hatred and rejection. It felt like go home, you’re not wanted here. My response was visceral. My gut ached, a sob caught in my throat, and my eyes welled up with tears. I couldn’t drive away fast enough. And I’m not a person who cries easily, at least not usually, but I cried all the way home. Just those couple of minutes of seeing how many people are anti-gay, anti-me, hurt more than I could have ever expected.
All of these stories sadden me, even if I can find errors with the thinking or behavior of each of them. Each, in their own way, clearly indicate confusion about who their fellow Americans are and what they believe.
But I place most of the blame the media and the cultural elite.
If it is true that believing marriage is the conjugal union of one man and one wife is bigoted, the equivalent to the most vile racists of the past centuries, then it makes sense to react in the way the reporter, the recently fired corporate executive and the lesbian passer-by did.
If the idea that marriage is the conjugal union of man and wife is bigotry -- and the mainstream media and the cultural elite have pounded this view non-stop for years (here's the latest example of the accompanying holier-than-thou pietism with which the view is pushed) -- then you should respond by tormenting drive-thru workers who are part of the bigotry-industrial complex. You should speak ill of people who hold this view on Facebook. Often! You should feel like eating a chicken sandwich was about people putting their boot on your chest.
The thing is, though, that it's not. And the media and the cultural elite have been lying. And they have gotten us to a place where people are unable to just be civil to each other (one Ricochet member mentioned he recently got kicked out of his fantasy football league for supporting Chick-fil-A).
When I first began covering this issue -- back when California was deciding Prop. 8 -- I was shocked to learn that what the media had told me was wrong. When I interviewed people who supported Prop. 8, I found that they were eminently calm and reasonable. Their arguments did take a while to learn, but they were able to be learned.
These people explained why marriage law exists and what it is designed to protect. They explained why they viewed a change to those laws as seriously misguided. They pointed out some of the logical conclusions to changing the definition of marriage.
Now, you may agree or disagree with what they have to say (and to learn more about what they say, I think this paper is easy to read and digest), but it's not bigotry. And it is a scurrilous indefensible charge to say otherwise.
If our country is to work through these debates about what marriage is and what it should be, we simply must devote ourselves to listening to arguments and thinking things through. It is impossible to do that when we dismiss supporters of traditional marriage as bigots.
It is time to start talking about what marriage is without charging people with bigotry. Some people believe that marriage is the conjugal union of a man and woman who make permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, based on their gender differences and built around conjugal acts -- those acts that naturally lead to reproduction and unite them as a reproductive unit. Other people believe that marriage is the union of two people of any sex who commit to romantically love and care for each other and share domestic burdens.
Marriage law built on either view will have consequences that are far-reaching. We probably haven't even touched the surface of what those consequences might be. And we will never be able to think these things through rationally and calmly if we denounce one or the other view as unfit for public discussion.
Many of us are tired of cultural battles. Unfortunately, tiring of them doesn't do much to help us resolve them. So when we discuss these things, and we must, let's discuss them in a spirit of love and charity. And let's encourage others to do likewise.
-- If you liked this post and want to join the conversation on it, click here to sign up for a One-Month Free Trial Offer. --
- Comment (165)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Mollie: The masses vote against gay marriage because the masses I think still believe that homosexuality is illegitimate. They think two men can't marry because they think two men can't actually be in love. That is my interpretation of the facts at least.
I think if people accept homosexuality as a legitimate alternative to heterosexuality (neither is viewed as morally superior), then they will go for SSM. The problem conservatives have is that the view of marriage has changed for people to a love centered definition. What kept SSM off the books while this change was happening was people's negative view of homosexuality.
Conservatives are stuck trying to redefine a word back to an earlier understanding. But, under the current popular view of marriage SSM is only illegitimate if homosexuals don't actually have "love" worthy of marriage. So to keep the laws from adhering to the brutal logic of the modern understanding of marriage conservatives have to argue that homosexual relationships are not based in true love. That is the quickest and most direct way to win the politics. But, that also puts conservative at direct odds with homosexual desires for legitimacy.
Jul '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Actually I go another way on the marriage question. Since we are being forced to question thousands of years of common law then maybe we should reconsider should it be a law at all. Why not return marriage to the religions? Why have a special protected class of people at all? That way the various faiths can define marriage as they wish or for that matter any group of people can do the same.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Precisely. Either there is or there is not a compelling societal rationale for traditional marriage, making it a legitimate object of law and public policy. The overarching rationale for State involvement is the perfectly legitimate desire of a society (in toto; even the single digit minority that prefers conjugal companionship with their own gender) to encourage healthy, well-adjusted offspring who will carry the torch forward, defend us militarily, enrich us economically, sustain us culturally and socially. Conversely, marriage other than 2-person heterosexual union has no basis for capturing our public attention. Some gays want State authority to cudgel others into acquiescence, legitimizing their “lifestyle.” They accuse traditionalists of bigotry but seem content to retain their own bigotry toward polygamy. Why is redefinition to include same sex marriage OK, but not to include polygamous marriage? Go ahead … make the *logical* case for the former but not the latter. If you can convince yourself that the State belongs in the middle of legitimating love interests, you are a totalitarian’s best friend.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Thank you for your welcome, Mollie. My opinion, fwiw:
A marriage agreement is whatever society agrees that it is. If different groups in society have different opinions about what that consists of, then there are several (perhaps overlapping, perhaps not) competing definitions.
These definitions have changed in the past, and may well change in future. All the changes to date (inter-faith marriages, no fault divorce, love honour and cherish instead of obey even) have been resisted – they were probably all seen as attempts to destroy society. That resistance was healthy – only robust changes to the definition make it through the rather brutal process.
Some definitions (polygamy, the subordinate legal status of wives in a marriage, the law against inter-racial marriages) became unacceptable – because of broader social change.
Change is not automatically good, but change is not automatically bad either.
None of the definitions is self evidently always right. They all hinge on assumptions about children, sexuality, race, religion, the role of the State, etc. And really I agree with you (I think) that this is where the case will be decided – by acknowledging these assumptions and debating them honestly and with an open mind.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
HVTs
[What is the logic of limiting marriage to your two definitions?]
There is no logic to it, as you say.
But given that the debate is about SSM, and whether it makes sense or not, I think those two definitions (not mine, from this discussion) are a good place to start. Because by one definition SSM is broadly arguable, by the other it isn’t.
[Specifically, what logic limits marriage to only two people?]
None. But it’s a leap from that to argue that accepting SSM means accepting all kinds of marriage. Let each stand or fall on its own merits (partly indicated by demand).
[In what universe was marriage EVER limited to the procreative?]
I don’t know, but I’m guessing not this one. Right?
[The question about marriage…concerns the legitimate State-interest in encouraging particular domestic arrangements for the health and stability of the body politic.]
If the health and stability of the body politic depends on more than just the procreative getting married, then why wouldn’t SSM add to this stability the way that childless married heterosexual couples do now? Doesn't cutting SSM out decrease social health and stability?
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
What leap? You’ve already agreed there’s no logical end point once redefinition begins. It’s down to politics and pressure tactics. You confirm this by arguing for evaluating the *merits* and using *demand* as a criterion. What merits would you judge? Who are the judges? The venues would inevitably be legislatures and court rooms. Stripped away, you are calling for a political solution. But you have not explained the compelling State interest in ‘approving’ various adult couplings. The government should stay out of this altogether, IMHO. But that will not satisfy those desperate to employ State power as a bludgeon for socially legitimating same sex attraction. In truth, if it’s bigotry that keeps us from accepting SSM, it’s mere bigotry that denies equal status to polygamy (if you will, multi-party attraction). You’ve no argument whatsoever to the contrary.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Your premise is wrong. Health and stability does *not* depend upon *more* than procreative marriages. Such marriages are necessary and sufficient. A stable, heterosexual, two-parent couple provides the greatest odds of producing stable, well-adjusted offspring who lead stable, productive and reproductive lives. Thus the government legitimately encourages 2-person heterosexual unions. That some couples remain childless—by choice or not—has no bearing on the issue. The government has no say in the matter of chosen childlessness, and no control over the latter.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
HVTs
[You’ve already agreed there’s no logical end point once redefinition begins.]
There is no logical reason to rule anything out JUST because it is different. But you should examine different definitions of marriage and assess their merits using clear criteria.
You did that by asserting that stable two partner heterosexual marriages (2OSM) are optimum for producing well adjusted offspring. “WAO” is the measure, and your claim of merit for 2OSM is that it makes them better than SSM.
[The government should stay out of this altogether.]
But the Govt doesn’t stay out of it. Childless straight couples get the benefits of marriage, childless gay couples do not.
The “well adjusted children” argument may or may not be true, but it’s a complete red herring until you take Govt actions (tax regimes, etc.) off the table for all childless couples (2OSM and SSM). That would at least be consistent.
To me it looks like the issue is equality between couples.
Legal equality will not result in social acceptance - it works the other way round – but is still an absolute good. And recourse to politics and the courts is a sign of civilisation – also good, imho.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
[Health and stability does *not* depend upon *more* than procreative marriages. Such marriages are necessary and sufficient.]
I disagree, HVTs. The health and stability of the body politic depends on a sound economy and responsive political system at least – neither of which is an automatic result of high heterosexual marriage rates. (eg France under the Bourbons, Russia under the Czars, Germany under you know who.)
[A stable, heterosexual, two-parent couple provides the greatest odds of producing stable, well-adjusted offspring who lead stable, productive and reproductive lives.]
Arguable. But are there other significant benefits to social stability from marriage? (Rates of home ownership up, health up, addictions down, violent crime down.) Arguably good for everybody, married or not, right?
[Thus the government legitimately encourages 2-person heterosexual unions. That some couples remain childless—by choice or not—has no bearing on the issue.]
To be honest it sounds like you’re trying to square the circle.
If we agree with your premise that the Govt should discriminate in favour of procreative couples, then why should the Govt at the same time NOT discriminate against couples who do not procreate? It’s a contradiction. Discriminate consistently, or don't discriminate.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: HVTs
But the Govt doesn’t stay out of it. Childless straight couples get the benefits of marriage, childless gay couples do not.
The “well adjusted children” argument may or may not be true, but it’s a complete red herring until you take Govt actions (tax regimes, etc.) off the table for all childless couples (2OSM and SSM). That would at least be consistent.
To me it looks like the issue is equality between couples.
I think the WAO/WAC argument is valid and that there's important scientific research that supports it. The lack of tax regime neutrality does not make it a red herring, but you raise a complex and legitimate epistemological question.
More directly relevant to this thread, however, is the hateful vitriol against anyone that dares to challenge Leftie-Gay orthodoxy on the topic of SSM, even when confined to scientific research. Google "Mark Regnerus" and judge for yourself. If I may, I'd encourage you to read this poignant and trenchant article, which could hardly be more on-topic with this entire thread, and ask yourself if “equality between couples” is truly the overarching *public* issue for our nation as concerns SSM.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: [Health and stability does *not* depend upon *more* than procreative marriages. Such marriages are necessary and sufficient.]
I disagree, HVTs. The health and stability of the body politic depends on a sound economy and responsive political system at least – neither of which is an automatic result of high heterosexual marriage rates. (eg France under the Bourbons, Russia under the Czars, Germany under you know who.)
When you split my paragraph as you did, the sentence you cite loses its context. Of course there is no automatic correlation between the mere act of 2OSM and sound economies amid political liberty (especially when you look across long stretches of history and vastly different cultures). There's no free lunch in anything as complex as this thing we abstractly refer to as "society." That 2OSM has to result in a stable (long term) family unit which nurtures children into socially productive adults.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar:
[A stable, heterosexual, two-parent couple provides the greatest odds of producing stable, well-adjusted offspring who lead stable, productive and reproductive lives.]
Arguable. But are there other significant benefits to social stability from marriage? (Rates of home ownership up, health up, addictions down, violent crime down.) Arguably good for everybody, married or not, right?
You assume without evidence that SSM yields the same social benefits as 2OSM. See my earlier post re: Mark Regnerus and (especially) the linked article. There's no real basis for this presumed congruence and I think it simply reflects the propaganda of activist gays. It's deeply felt and has become the only socially acceptable opinion in mid-town Manhattan, but it isn't evidently true. This gets back to my earlier point about how the redefinition of marriage will devolve to politics and pressure tactics.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
HVTs - the issue I'm raising is one of consistency. And I'm afraid that it is central to the argument. If you can't even bother to be consistent with your own stated argument (WOA, childless 2OSM, etc.), then why should I give it any credence? Clearly you don't really mean what you say because you aren't acting on it. Do you see my point? It might not feel like a comfortable thing to address for you, but it's a fairly central issue.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar -
We must be talking past one another as I don’t think I do see your point. Do you simply mean that we can’t—from a public policy or legal standpoint—treat one form of adult union differently than another? Why not? By “consistency” do you really mean fairness? We discriminate between like things every day. For instance, race- and gender-based preference schemes are infused in every aspect of every level of government and life, most obviously employment and higher education.
My argument is that there is a very limited sphere of public interest in what consenting adults do to order their private life. We should encourage behaviors that contribute to public good, within the context of limited government. China can dictate family size. Our government can use limited means to encourage unions that we know improve the odds of WAO, in which there is a clear social interest. Otherwise, keep the government out of it.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
If you think it is proper to privilege procreative unions (arguable) then privilege procreative unions. Specifically. You're arguing for privileging heterosexual unions *because* they're procreative, but then saying that whether they're procreative or not is none of the Govt's business. That doesn't really make sense.
"Do you simply mean that we can’t—from a public policy or legal standpoint—treat one form of adult union differently than another?"
Not at all - we can and we do. I'm talking about your stated criteria (procreativity) being applied inconsistently between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
Why can a sixty year old heterosexual couple get married, but a sixty year old gay couple not? Neither of them can procreate. So why does the State treat their unions differently? What is the reasoning? What, specifically, is the State's pressing interest in the matter?
Edited on August 9, 2012 at 1:43pmFeb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: If you think it is proper to privilege procreative unions (arguable) then privilege procreative unions. Specifically. You're arguing for privileging heterosexual unions *because* they're procreative, but then saying that whether they're procreative or not is none of the Govt's business. That doesn't really make sense.
.....
I disagree. I think it makes sense (from a limited government perspective) to draw the bright line at the category level rather than examining the individual circumstances. If we look at specific couples then the government would have to administer tests, gather evidence of intent, monitor continuing progress, etc. This is all way too intrusive, too expensive, unwelcome, and probably unworkable. These costs would outweigh the benefits to society. However, I believe the benefits do exist; so drawing the line at the category is a reasonable way to reap the benefits and avoid the costs.
Feb '11
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar: .....
Why can a sixty year old heterosexual couple get married, but a sixty year old gay couple not? Neither of them can procreate. So why does the State treat their unions differently? What is the reasoning? What, specifically, is the State's pressing interest in the matter?
You certainly have a point here. One of the arguments I make against SSM marriage on this specific point is that we don't need to administer tests or check intent when it comes to same sex couples: we know without any evidence they're incapable of procreation. This argument would also apply to eighty year olds. I don't know that I have a satisfactory answer for you. I suppose I wouldn't object to such a policy (i.e. not recognizing new couples obviously incapable of procreation). However, until that happens I don't think we need to fundamentally change what marriage is in a quixotic effort to attain perfection. We shouldn't decide to stop bothering to separate the wheat from the chaff simply because some chaff will always get mixed with the wheat no matter what we do. No institution is (or can ever be) perfect.
Aug '12
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Ed G.
[This is all way too intrusive, too expensive, unwelcome, and probably unworkable. These costs would outweigh the benefits to society.
Without quantifying either, how can we tell?
I understand the view that marriage only involves one man and one woman, and I get it if this is due to personal beliefs – I may not agree, but it’s an honest view and I can respect it.
What I don’t get is the whole “settled answer looking for just the right question” approach – which is what the “procreation standard” looks like to me. Because the answer stays the same though the questions keep shifting.
This, imho, undermines the social fabric by bringing into question the justice of our laws and how they are applied. If the laws are unjust, why obey any of them? If social mores are inconsistent, why follow them?
So I’ll hand it back to you. You don’t believe in SSM for a number of reasons. How can you present this to people who do (and who may be gay) in way that doesn’t cave or pander, but which still treats them honestly and with respect – in word AND deed?
Edited on August 10, 2012 at 9:40amOct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
I think Ed G. has covered this very well. Zafar is correct that there is no wholly satisfactory consistency when you get to ages beyond child birth. [We should be cautious about when that really happens given the spate of 60-somethings having babies and ever-improving technology.] But feasibility and reasonability of government intervention becomes the crucial factor, as Ed G. points out. So, if the research I cited earlier is born out in further study, we ought not encourage child rearing outside of 2OSM.
Not to switch topics, but one can well imagine a higher priority crowding out the most preferred WAO solution. Given the demographic disaster befalling the industrialized free world, gay couples raising children is better than too-few children. This might apply to polygamous families too. The slow motion demographic suicide that Europe, Japan and North America are embarked upon can’t be stopped by wishing it away. Gay couples adopting overseas babies and raising them here to be Americans is far preferable to simply running out of human stock. Then again, there is probably far more we could be doing to encourage organic population growth. But that's for another thread.
Oct '10
Re: The Same-Sex Mariage Debate Is Too Vicious, And Here's What We Need To Do About It
Zafar:
You don’t believe in SSM … How can you present this (to gays) in way that doesn’t cave or pander, but still treats them ... with respect – in word AND deed?
Why shouldn’t one cave? SSM advocates want a government stamp of approval on their partnering. To them it says, “We are just like you!” In one government-imposed swoop all who object (for whatever reason) are made akin to racial supremacists. This is about marginalizing one particular side in a heated debate, a minority seeking to use government power to force the majority into its narrow channel of acceptable thought.
Under these circumstances, it’s appropriate to cave. Let’s get the government out of the whole business of picking one side over the other. The overarching societal interest is in WAO, which leads us to a variety of policy outcomes but is bounded by competing social goals. We have mechanisms for resolving this sort of problem that are slow, inefficient, cumbersome—by design. One side wants to stifle opposition and end the debate once and for all. They don’t think the majority should be allowed to think differently from them. Why play into their hands?