The case for marriage
The editors of National Review respond to the claim that opposition to same-sex marriage is bigoted and irrational by writing a very rational and unbigoted case for marriage. They point out how radical a change in law is, particularly for religious institutions. They suggest that the radical nature of the change might cause great societal unrest.
But the editorial hits at an important part of the debate. What is marriage? Prominent advocates of same-sex marriage say that the purpose of marriage is to express and safeguard an emotional union of adults or to make it more likely that people will have others to give them care in sickness and old age.
The editors note that these are, indeed, aspects of marriage. But they're not the fundamental reason for marriage:
The reason marriage exists is that the sexual intercourse of men and women regularly produces children. If it did not produce children, neither society nor the government would have much reason, let alone a valid reason, to regulate people’s emotional unions. (The government does not regulate non-marital friendships, no matter how intense they are.) If mutual caregiving were the purpose of marriage, there would be no reason to exclude adult incestuous unions from marriage. ...
Marriage exists, in other words, to solve a problem that arises from sex between men and women but not from sex between partners of the same gender: what to do about its generativity. It has always been the union of a man and a woman (even in polygamous marriages in which a spouse has a marriage with each of two or more persons of the opposite sex) for the same reason that there are two sexes: It takes one of each type in our species to perform the act that produces children. That does not mean that marriage is worthwhile only insofar as it yields children. (The law has never taken that view.) But the institution is oriented toward child-rearing. (The law has taken exactly that view.) What a healthy marriage culture does is encourage adults to arrange their lives so that as many children as possible are raised and nurtured by their biological parents in a common household.
That is also what a sound law of marriage does.
The editorial dismisses the argument -- which I've made -- that government should get out of the marriage business. It points out that the government isn't uninterested in the welfare of children and that contracts for each sexual encounter (to determine who will have responsibility for raising children) would be a mess as well.
I have to admit that reality is in tension with my libertarian ideals on this matter. The editors put it well:
When a marriage involving children breaks down, or a marriage culture weakens, government has to get more involved, not less.
One of the things that annoys me about this debate is the supposedly rhetorical question about how in the world same-sex marriage might affect anyone else's marriage. It's a great question, actually -- but one that deserves lots of thought and consideration from all sides. Divorcing marriage, sex and procreation has had -- and will continue to have -- serious effects on many marriages.
The whole thing is worth a read. It responds to many of the common arguments involved in the debate (infertility, contraceptive culture and discrimination, etc.).
Dismissing proponents of traditional marriage as bigoted and irrational is silly. I'd like to see the conversation about marriage elevated and this editorial provides a great beginning. Has anyone seen a good response to this from those who advocate changing marriage law to include same-sex couples or other non-traditional arrangements?
- Comment (59)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
When it comes to turning teenage boys into considerate well-behaved men, there's just no substitute for fathers--fathers with skin in the game. That's the part we need to worry about most. You usually only get one chance to do it right.
May '10
Re: The case for marriage
Honestly Mollie. I'm exhausted from Murphy/Delaware and Berlinski/Meet-a-liberal streams I was hoping we could rest from hot buttons for a day.
But I'll repeat something I've said before.
Our social life revolves around a school community with MANY gay families. These kids are raised with values that substantively concur with my own -- working hard through adversity, the value of education, respect for everyone, taking care of yourself and your space, no rushing of adulthood or sexuality, highly-monitored and generally low exposure to mass media and reading and exercise before electronics.
These unions do not threaten me or my family or my children. Yes, they make it seem more than OK to be gay -- and I understand that some people have religious issues with that -- but I don't. And I see no evidence of any social breakdown. the sexual habits of the parents are of no more concern to me or my children than are the sexual habits of heterosexual parents.
I grant that some folks live in communities where this might all cause discomfort. Fine, they can live there. But I see nothing fundamental about this new institution that threatens anything.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 2:14pmJul '10
Re: The case for marriage
Trace: How would you feel about a polygamist family whose values substantively concur with your own? What about an incestuous (brother-sister) family? Because the argument for gay marriage along the lines of "it doesn't bother me so who cares?" is the same argument for really any sexual pairing (or as the NR article pointed out even non-sexual unions).
I found the article very interesting, providing a decent defense of traditional marriage, real marriage, on civil grounds. However, much of this issue turns on religious grounds which weren't addressed in the article. For Christians, it is not about alternate lifestyles and personal liberty, it's about legitimizing perversion. That's why the very concept is anathema to Christians.
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
I think your choice - get government out of the marriage business - is the only real response.
Here is the best argument against the "sanctity" of traditional marriage I have heard:
"I can go to Vegas (or California for that matter), meet someone while intoxicated, whom I know virtually nothing about, go to a nearby chapel, get married, and the state will sanction it. There is nothing sacred or sanctified about it."
Once the government made marriage part of its bureaucracy, and the churches allowed it, they gave up their right to define it. Hence, it will define down to the lowest common denominator, which will include polgamy eventually. It is the inevitable logic of these types of legal battle.
Gay marriage _will_ undermine and destroy the sanctity of the IDEA of marriage. There is no stopping it. It can be postponed, but that is all.
As for marriage itself? It has already lost all the sanctimony that the state inherited when it subsumed it. Two words - Brittney and K-Fed. What is there left to save in it?
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
Trace Urdan: And I see no evidence of any social breakdown.
Really?
May '10
Re: The case for marriage
Mollie, I don't know whether you're familiar with the work of libertarian economist Jennifer Robuck Morse. She makes a compelling case on libertarian grounds for traditional marriage. See her book Love and Economics, or her articles at the Witherspoon Institute.
Essentially she argues that free societies depend on individuals who have the kind of moral qualities--such as trust, honesty, responsibility--that grow in an environment of gratuitous love and service. That environment is marriage.
Sep '10
Re: The case for marriage
Mollie, This editorial is about as good a presentation of the case for government involvement in marriage as I have seen. I would ask that you write a polite article that articulates the flaws in the editorial’s arguments. Some suggestions: A fundamental flaw in the logic is equating correlation with causality. For example there is a strong correlation between government marriage licenses and procreation. That does not mean that government marriage licenses cause procreation or that a lack of government marriage licenses inhibits procreation.
The editorial says, "The government cannot simply declare itself uninterested in the welfare of children." My understanding is that under current laws, the biological mother and father have joint and several responsibility for the welfare of the child they created with or without a government marriage license.
Another flaw is equating our traditional romantic notion of “marriage” with a government marriage license. A government marriage license does require that the couple vow to love each other, like each other, live together or try to make babies. Consider the government marriage license issued to Britney Spears in Las Vegas. A marriage license is not going to cause a “deadbeat dad” to become a caring father.
Sep '10
Re: The case for marriage
Continuing:
The question is raised, “What is marriage?” The real question is what is the government’s definition of marriage. Not WHO can get married, but WHAT marriage is. This question is avoided because it is unanswerable. Consider how the government ties itself in logical knots trying to deal with “sham” marriages of Russian women wedded to Americans for the purpose of gaining legal entry to the US.
“When a marriage involving children breaks down, or a marriage culture weakens, government has to get more involved, not less.” Hold true to libertarian ideals Mollie. Rephrasing, “When any marriage, with or without a government marriage license, involving children breaks down, the government has to get involved if the parents cannot provide for the welfare of the child or if there is a legal dispute between the parents.” The government issuing or not issuing marriage licenses will not affect its involvement in this issue.
The other question is, “What would happen if the government withdrew from the marriage and special civil union businesses?” I would bet that life would go on. Beautiful weddings, love, families, etc. Nobody ever asked to see our marriage license until it came time to collect Social Security.
May '10
Re: The case for marriage
This is a tough one, and I usually avoid the topic altogether. (And I come at this a-religiously and as someone who was raised by a single mom.) In short, think conservatively:
It is a basic tenet of conservatism that we nurture institutions or traditions that have proven to work and that we be very, very cautious about changing them. Marriage, as the West has defined it for centuries, is one such institution. Experience has taught us that men and women are different and hence fathers and mothers both have unique and important roles in their children's lives, and that intact husband-wife-kids families tend to function well. It is decent and proper and reasonable (and not at all bigoted) for society to consider such an arrangement to be the ideal, and to assign it a word, "marriage."
Are there other family structures that work? Of course. But this is not grounds for eliminating our ideal. Once gone, it's gone forever. And then eventually, as surely as night follows day, marriage will be considered just one of many different and equivalent life choices. Big problem, and an unintended consequence of "unconservatively" messing with tradition.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 6:38pmRe: The case for marriage
Did you read the editorial? It sort of eviscerated that argument. In brief: what happens to the children that are the natural product of coitus between a man and woman.
Jul '10
Re: The case for marriage
The reason marriage exists is to discourage sex between two consenting adults.
May '10
Re: The case for marriage
Whiskey Sam: Trace: How would you feel about a polygamist family whose values substantively concur with your own?
For Christians, it is not about alternate lifestyles and personal liberty, it's about legitimizing perversion. That's why the very concept is anathema to Christians. · Sep 16 at 2:30pm
Interesting example because I know of one family where the child divides her time between two gay moms and two gay dads. And my youngest son has a Little League teammate with the same arrangement. Because as I said it's not about bedroom arrangements, I would say those creative families are something akin to polygamous.
My children find those arrangements absurd because I find them absurd. But the net effect has no real consequence negative or otherwise for me/my family. I understand that it crosses the line for some Christians (please Whiskey, SF Episcopals are Christians too!) but I just can't point and judge it as immoral.
I think state elections are the best way to resolve these social disagreements and folks should live in communities where the practices conform to their ideas, and I respect NR's opinion, but believe it's written without real direct knowledge.
May '10
Re: The case for marriage
Samwise Gamgee
Really? · Sep 16 at 5:27pm
Well it is San Francisco after all and we are responsible for the Speaker of the House, but I'm hard-pressed to lay that at the door of gay marriage. I am far more concerned with the disintegration of the African American family and the number of children being born to overwhelmed single mothers. That is an issue I can get worked up about and probably agree with social conservatives. But as best I can tell gay marriage is about domestication and child-rearing and owning homes (and decorating them!) and mowing lawns and paying taxes. From my up-close experience with gay families I see no evidence to see it leads to anything but responsible adults raising children.
Edited on Sep 16, 2010 at 7:32pmAug '10
Re: The case for marriage
Mark and Christian, don't even libertarians agree that one of the legitimate functions of the state is enforcement of contracts that are freely entered into by informed adults?
Jul '10
Re: The case for marriage
I'm with Trace.
As I've said before, I don't care if some guy in another state wants to marry a panda.
In my state? Well, that's probably OK with me, too.
I just think we have many much more serious threats to our civilization than who sleeps with whom. And to the extent that we focus our attention on who sleeps with whom, the statists benefit from our taking our eyes off the ball.
Jul '10
Re: The case for marriage
Trace Urdan
Interesting example because I know of one family where the child divides her time between two gay moms and two gay dads. And my youngest son has a Little League teammate with the same arrangement. Because as I said it's not about bedroom arrangements, I would say those creative families are something akin to polygamous.
My children find those arrangements absurd because I find them absurd. But the net effect has no real consequence negative or otherwise for me/my family. I understand that it crosses the line for some Christians (please Whiskey, SF Episcopals are Christians too!) but I just can't point and judge it as immoral.
I think state elections are the best way to resolve these social disagreements and folks should live in communities where the practices conform to their ideas, and I respect NR's opinion, but believe it's written without real direct knowledge. · Sep 16 at 7:22pm
Sorry if I came across as implying you were not a Christian. I was only trying to point out there's a critical, religious aspect that everyone seems to tiptoe around but is the driving force behind a lot of the opposition.
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
Mollie Hemingway
Did you read the editorial? It sort of eviscerated that argument. In brief: what happens to the children that are the natural product of coitus between a man and woman. · Sep 16 at 6:40pm
I think the editorial is fundamentally off base. I don't think it's arguments jibe with reality, making its conclusions less than eviscerating. More like a kitten threatening a doberman. :-)
I do not believe the government can or ought to take responsibility for "the natural product of coitus between a man and a woman."
It cannot take responsibility, because unless it is totalitarian, it does not have sufficient control.
Because it cannot, it ought not pretend that it is taking control. This "absolves" the parents from official responsibility, but does not replace it with anything. Example: modern single parent families and the concomitant cultural chaos.
Family is critically important. However, when the churches transferred sanction of marriage to the state, they doomed it to mere contractual status. The only way back is to take the sanction function back from the state.
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
Sure! I didn't think that was at question. My understanding is that the question is: "Should the state restrict the right to enter into those contracts to people with complimentary genitalia?"
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
As a couples counselor, I must question the legitimacy of your last statement. Marriage MAY be an environment that grow/cultivate "moral" qualities such as you mention. However, in my experience, it is the attitude people bring to the marriage that is determinative.
People also grow those qualities through sports, work, etc. Marriage is not necessary, although it is often one of the best opportunities for those with an attitude that values those qualities.
AND, are you intending to argue that we should be extending marriage to all people, regardless of gender, because of its capacity to build moral qualities?
Jun '10
Re: The case for marriage
Trace Urdan
From my up-close experience with gay families I see no evidence to see it leads to anything but responsible adults raising children
Trace, being close friends with many gay couples, including those with children, I agree with your present time assessment.
The "danger" of gay marriages to traditional marriage is not of this year, or even this decade. It is 20-50 years from now.
When I wrote my first book on relationships and marriage, I was flabbergasted to discover that marriage has essentially one central characteristic in its definition. It is "man and wife for life." Heterosexual commitment is the essence of marriage as it has been defined for millennium.
There is a reason for this. The functional purpose of marriage is to sublimate and contain people's sexual energy. By pairing people off and making fidelity a cardinal virtue, cultures tame the wild carnality of humanity.
Marriage is the way culture has done this. The conservative position suggests that tampering with this has consequence.
The sexual revolution, legitimization of divorce, and cultural acceptance of pre-marital sex started this dismantling. Gay marriage finishes it.