Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Same-Sex Marriage: Not Over Yet
I’ve been meaning to put this up since Peter and James discussed it on the Ricochet podcast more than a week ago: I don’t think the controversy over gay marriage has been settled yet. Conservatives should not give up on it, and those who do may well find themselves apologetically backpedalling some years hence.
We need to remember that progressives are wrong when they suggest that culture always moves inexorably in one direction. Sometimes we flirt with stupid ideas for awhile, realize their folly, and then abandon them. Remember when open marriage was a thing? When getting divorced was best for your kids “because they won’t be happy if you’re not”? Remember Dan Quayle getting mocked for saying what is now completely conventional wisdom among liberals and conservatives alike — that single parenthood isn’t just a lifestyle choice? Social ideas and customs do shift back and forth over time. Sometimes we even learn things and make appropriate adjustments.
Given how quickly and non-democratically same-sex marriage has descended upon us, there’s every reason to think that some learning and adjustment could still take place. This is still a dynamic situation, with much to gain and much more to lose. Given that fact, it’s very disheartening to me that so many conservatives now view same-sex marriage as a settled fight from which we need to find a graceful exit. Their complicity is itself a pretty sad statement about conservative priorities.
The governmental process by which same-sex marriage has been foisted on us could hardly have been less democratic; this is the epitome of a case in which the elite have strong-armed ordinary people into relinquishing their views and way of life. Isn’t that something that should have us up in arms? Meanwhile, we’re told that same-sex marriage is now socially accepted, primarily because young people tend to have no problem with it. Because allowing your most ignorant and least experienced citizens to determine the future of society’s most central institution is generally the path of wisdom, right?
As I’ve argued elsewhere, young people really don’t understand marriage, and many of them actually want more guidance on the subject. Instead of treating them like the experts, we should be making broad-spectrum efforts to shore up marriage on all fronts. I’m not suggesting that opposition to same-sex marriage needs to be the primary focus of that, but abandoning the traditional view outright will make for some pretty serious handicaps.
It seems like I’m hearing a lot of people these days saying that they have no problem with same-sex marriage, only to turn around two minutes later and start discussing how we need to return to the ideal of marriage as a more child-centered institution. Surely you at least appreciate that there is some tension here? Same-sex marriage seemed ridiculous for the great majority of history, precisely because marriage was a child-centered institution. When we moved away from seeing marriage in that light, marrying gays or lesbians to one another started to seem like a cool idea. If we enshrine this practice in American custom, doesn’t it seem reasonable to worry that this will move us still further away from seeing marriage as a permanent arrangement intended first and foremost for the good of children? Bolstering marriage as an institution is going to be much, much harder if we feel obliged to kowtow to progressive understandings of what it is.
Finally, there is the issue of religious liberty. I know many conservatives are of the opinion that we should give in on same-sex marriage but bolster support for religious liberty. Here’s my question: is there any reason at all to suppose that would work? I think the people who make such suggestions generally do so in good faith, but when you appreciate the goals of the progressive movement, and the (already well-established) ruthlessness with which they are willing to pursue them, taking refuge in religious liberty seems like the epitome of a lost cause. If the traditional understanding of marriage is branded as bigotry, it won’t be protected. People will be forced to violate their consciences in serious ways. This is already happening somewhat here, and on a more egregious scale in Europe.
I’ve yet to hear a “religious freedom” conservative define a strategy for shoring up religious freedom that seems likely to work. We’re facing a tidal wave of progressive energy and, as a social conservative, it feels like the Republican Party keeps trying to throw us umbrellas.
Marriage defenders have clearly lost the most recent battle. But, as we’ve seen with abortion, major social issues like this make for long, complicated wars. Every good general knows that even a defeat can yield certain tactical advantages. Instead of throwing up our hands, we should be eyeing the road ahead and planning our next moves.
Published in General
Zafar said:
“With a reasonable sample size these questions might quantify the relative impact on children of their parents being happily married, unhappily married, divorced, remarried, single, gay or straight. By separating out the variable you are assessing as far as possible. …”
Well, there is a problem. None of the sociological studies to date have reasonable sample size, or if they do they can be shown to have serious selection biases in the sampling. None, on either side, can be relied on for anything but a vague indication of how the kids turn out.
Yet, without any credible science on the issue we are rushing to re-define the basic institution that forms families in our society.
And the progressives keep saying that they won a debate. The debate never was held; we are still waiting for some basic sociological research before we can even have a good start to this debate.
MJ, I don’t think we’re rushing it. Forty years was enough for the Israelites; it’s been 45 years since the Stonewall riots. We’ve been heading here for generations. We “redefined” marriage back in the Thirties and Forties. The gays had nothing to do with that. Ten years ago, I would have agreed with your “And the progressives keep saying that they won a debate. The debate never was held”. But now it has been held, and contra to what others have said here, there’s no boiling anger, no marching in the streets, and no strong reaction.
Rachel, the problem your side has had all along is the inability to produce any credible evidence that this change would hurt people, simple as that. You haven’t proved harm, at least to most people, and that’s why the argument lost. It doesn’t affect child rearing; if your kid is straight, as is the case 97% of the time, you’ll know what to do. If he or she is gay, like the other 3%, there are now-established sets of ways to understand it.
I know that for Bible literalists that’s not enough.
A conservative would argue that burden of proof belongs to the party that is changing the rules.
One part that I agree with Mike on is that the arguments that children raised in households of homosexual couples are worse off is a poor argument against SSM.
As a traditionalist, my thought often run to the teleological. What is the natural and historical purpose of marriage? The natural and historical purpose of marriage was to provide guarantees to both parties of the marriage that any children produced within the marriage was a biological heir with full rights of inheritance. The father knew he would be leaving his property to his own biological offspring, and for the mother prevented any other offspring produced outside of the marriage (aka bastards) from obtaining inheritance rights. It is a contract to ensure the biological success of one’s genetic code.
Because same-sex couples can’t produce biological offspring this teleological purpose does not apply. Which means the only purpose of SSM is as an indicator of societal approval of homosexual relationships. Basically SSM serves the same purpose as a participation ribbon.
Pretty much any thoughtful analysis leads ultimately to this conclusion.
What more proof of harm do you need? Children are increasingly born outside of marriage, 70% in the black community, approaching 50% in other demographics. To assert that the “redefinition” of marriage has not catastrophically damaged the institution of family is utterly wrong.
Marriage-family-children was a synergy long before anyone knew what synergy meant. The “redefining” of marriage, however, separates those into separate components. They claim that marriage doesn’t need children, and by gosh, the statistics show how society is having lots of children without marriage. The result: we have an increasing number of children growing up without fathers.
That’s only the first sign of the harm. The rest follows indirectly.
It isn’t that gay marriage caused all that. But gay marriage is only possible because of the same factors that are seriously damaging that connection between marriage-family-children. And as I said on another thread, we conservatives aren’t blindly trying to grasp hold of ancient customs just because we can’t “handle” change. We hold onto them because they worked. Marriage-family-children worked. Children growing up with fathers worked.
The statistics about family breakdown are ample proof of the harm.
Rachel, certainly we must do a better job teaching what marriage is, why it matters for public policy, and why redefining it has social costs. As you know, Ryan Anderson has a wealth of resources at Public Discourse.
Perhaps the French are leading on this issue and theirs is a model to follow. Rather than focusing on the selfish wants of adults, they have focused on the rights and well-being of children. Ludovine de la Rochère, the president of La Manif pour Tous states:
And when you are talking about altering fundamental institutions in such a dramatic way, that burden of proof is extremely high because the consequences are unforeseeable. This isn’t just extending the opportunity for marriage to people who didn’t have it before. It’s attempting to reset the parameters for what marriage actually is.
If marriage is just a romantic commitment between two people (or, I suppose, three or four or whatever), then perhaps it is no big deal. If its function has been based, as I believe, in the intrinsic complementary nature of men and women (of which sexual attraction is only one part), then you’re doing something rather profound without understanding it, which is always dangerous. If, still further, that design was based on God’s original intention and He did not give us room to tinker around with it, then direct defiance of His plan will not turn out well.
To be honest, MJ, imho it’s not always a good idea to try and use science to prove a religious belief – it seems to invite a cavalier approach to the scientific method (cherry picking, methodology that is designed to support one outcome or another) and it’s not that respectful of religious belief either.
While you’re waiting for them to try and convince you, they’ve been convincing other people. The only gatekeeper to public opinion is the public.
Merina, I read that article but can’t find it any more. I think it speaks directly to several of the arguments in this thread, however, and would like to quote from it. Do you still have the link?
Niiice. I see what you did there, shifting the context.
For the record, I’m not waiting for anyone to convince me. I’ve heard all the arguments and I am thoroughly unconvinced. Despite the efforts of many to use public opinion as a lever to force acceptance of a flawed theory, I refuse to pretend. Furthermore, I find it unseemly, or worse, for people who consider themselves conservative to employ such tactics. It’s not over.
Gay marriage institutionalizes the step-family structure. In both arrangements, adults are willing to create unjust family structures for children, because they demand the right to create new families with sexual partners who are never the other parent of the prior children.
After reading Tabula Rasa’s post on Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles, it seems to me that those conservatives in favor of SSM are in conflict with principles 1-6, 9, and 10.
On the recent Radio Free Delingpole podcast, James and guest Peter Foster get into a bit of a reason/passion discussion near the end. Foster comments that philosopher David Hume argued that reason is a slave to passion, and that we are driven by emotions. He highlighted that many on the left don’t think their way to a better world, but instead rationalize what they feel is right. I think this is what is happening with the acceptance of SSM: emotions and feelings have taken over from reason.