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.
A Pointed 104 Seconds on the Marriage Debate
Here at Stanford this past spring, the Anscombe Society braved threats and intimidation of all kinds to host a conference in favor of traditional marriage. In this video one of the speakers, the marvelously articulate and completely fearless Ryan Anderson, replies to a questioner. Watch the video, if you have 104 seconds to spare, and then note, if you would, my questions below:
Without quite realizing it, I saw when I listened to this exchange, I’d been sliding toward at least a grudging acceptance of the libertarian position on marriage—namely, that we should get the government out of the business of defining marriage altogether. Which leads to:
1) Anderson is right, isn’t he, that such an approach leads inevitably to viewing marriage as merely a subset of contract law? If a man wants to marry a man, fine; let them draw up a legally binding contract. If one man wants to marry six women; or two men, two women; or one woman another—again, fine. Let them simply draw up the proper contracts, and let the government enforce them as it would any contract.
2) This really won’t do, will it? Marriage between one man and one woman really is different, and the state needs to recognize that reality, or—what? Or chaos. Yes?
Published in General
Marriage is not a contract or agreement between the two (?) individuals but their community’s recognition of that agreement. The government is the only viable representative of the civil community and any attempt to remove it from marriage destroys the essence of what marriage is.
As I asked in #18: “Why should I argue for a policy that their most vocal and political members do not want?” What is the purpose of arguing for (or against) civil unions, when they are not even on the table? Reference:
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-versus-civil-unions-domestic-partnerships-etc
First, civil unions and marriage-as-a-contract are not the same. A civil union is still an arrangement defined by society, whereas mere-contract-marriage can be defined with any terms the parties like. A civil union (as most of us imagine it) is still between two people, for example, whereas mere-contract-marriage can be “among” a group, like say, the Dallas Cowboys’ offensive line.
I would still like an answer to the question I first posed in #8. Does society have a duty to enforce a nature-based limitation on the number of legally recognized parents for children?
The reason most of us even consider civil unions is to preserve all the privileges of traditional marriage for one-man-one-woman, lifelong, procreative marriages. A marriage that produces a family should be privileged.
Civil unions are about cases, for example, where the partners can’t have children, but that those partners want the socially stabilizing benefits of social recognition. OK, we’ll try to accommodate that, but not by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, i.e., stripping the privileged place of family-producing marriages. Civil unions are an accommodation to relationships that have dignity, while still preserving the privileged place of family.
Rather than accept civil unions, however, the SSM community demands, instead, that we drop the idea that child-bearing families are any more important to society than private relationships. To accept SSM is to demand that bearing children is irrelevant to society, and that all that matters is how the contracting partners feel about each other.
IMO, society has minimal interest in promoting relationships, but a huge interest in making sure that children are produced and properly cared for. That’s why we want child-bearing marriages to be privileged.
To answer your questions directly Peter, Ryan is correct to an extent but I believe he may have it backwards. I would argue the approach does not lead to viewing marriage as merely a subset of contract law but is actually premised on that view. It is only when you (incorrectly IMHO) view marriage as merely an agreement between the two individuals that any of the arguments in favor of removing the man/woman component make any sense. The problem with this is, as you state, marriage as an institution devolves into chaos or meaninglessness.
I honestly do not think that marriage is, or should be any of the Federal Gov’ts business. (I disagree with the Federal Gov’t being allowed to have any say in any part of our personal lives.) I think that States, County’s et. al. should be able to decide to regulate (or not). If we disagree with our State etc. we have the last resort of voting with our feet. Leaving our country is far more complex and expensive.
NOTE: In several of the comments above I’ve noticed that the words “society” and “gov’t” are used almost interchangeably, as if they were near synonyms. It seems to me that they are very different beasts.
Society? Definitely not, it’s none of societies business. The Federal Gov’t? No, again I hold that it is none of the Federal Gov’ts business. State and local gov’t.? They should be able to decide for themselves.
No fair! Roger Scruton is my favorite living philosopher besides Rene Girard of course.
What is government in a republic if not a representative for civil society?
Heh.
Heh, heh.
Ha ha!
bwahAHAHAHAH!
O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in’t!
“Dissolution” is the very word. Everything solid would simply dissolve. Beautifully stated, Mugwump.
In passing, I’ll just note that the logic of the argument that Ryan brings forth here, that the family is basically a contract, is the same as the underlying logic conveyed by Locke’s argument in Chapter 6 of the Second Treatise.
If marriage becomes arranged commonly by contract, then some people will structure their contracts to clearly delineate the range of their responsibilities and to limit their risks and liabilities. Marriage will cease to be the path to wider responsibilities, where one becomes responsible to one’s spouse, and in-laws, later responsible to children, neighbors and schools, and later to the larger society and concerned for the future of grandchildren. Marriage contracts will increasingly focus on the practical arrangements of money, property, and penalties. Where as once marriage increased the network of obligations, parenthood, relatives, and society, marriage by contract will limit the network of obligations. Many people will not want to expose themselves to unknown future obligations. Who would include attendance at soccer games or PTA meetings in a contract? A contract model for marriage stands as a pattern for other associations, and this is not a pattern which would lead to more civically responsible people. Also when contracts are broken, the government will be brought in to decide which claims have merit.
On the other hand, all contracts, in order to be enforceable, must be recognized by a community beyond just the parties signing the contract.
What good is a contract without an agreed-upon impartial mediator to mediate any contract disputes that may arise?
That mediator may be a non-government institution (such as the BBB or an ecclesiastical court), a government court, or (in some cases) simply public opinion. Whoever it is, without recourse to some outside source of mediation, I doubt most individuals would find entering contracts worth it.
I have returned, victorious over database changes which were mysteriously added to production instead of beta.
Now where were we…
How strong a case do you think you’re making here?
Case one is a ruling confirming what I said.
Case two is from Italy, and hardly relevant to US law.
Case three involves a man not going through the proper channels to make it official
Case four involves a women stealing donated sperm
None of this addresses my point that US law allows for biological fathers who do not have parental responsibility.
The impartial mediator does not set the terms of the contract, the mediator does not officiate over the signing of the contract, nor does the mediator pronounce the contract in effect.
Marriage is fundamentally different than a contract.
Huh? Are you saying that if PTA and soccer game attendance isn’t explicitly stated in the marital contract, people married by contract would en masse refuse to do it? I don’t see this happening.
A contract defines the limits of acceptable behavior. People resort to enforcing the term of their contract under desperate circumstances, but for day to day negotiation, informal bargaining usually works. Marriage contracts in the past did not need to specify every last detail of domestic arrangements in order to work; rather, they laid down broad guidelines.
Moreover, people marry in large part because people want the mutual informal obligations that come with marriage and family – especially since these mutual obligations come with mutual benefits.
I wanted to care for my MIL when she was gravely ill, not because I’m exceptionally virtuous, but because I’m human and humans (particularly human females) tend to value such bonds – even when they kinda wish they didn’t value those bonds so much :-)
Ryan Anderson’s argument is right on. SSM inevitably leads to changing the governmental function of marriage to that of just contract.
To answer Frank, a lot depends on the what kind of case law results from civil unions vs. marriage. If civil unions are treated by the courts strictly as contract law, rather than marriage or family law, then I think there is a possibility that civil unions could exist without fundamentally changing the function of marriage. The only way this result could be achieved is if civil unions between SS lovers are a minority of civil unions and other types of civil unions like heterosexual couples for whatever reason or family member-family member (non-sexual) civil unions are the majority. However, I believe that this result would be improbable and so likely civil unions in end have the same result as SSM.
Marriage as contract fundamentally changes a society. As a conservative, one respects the institutions of society and are wary of making changes to those institutions. The longer and more establish the institution the more respect and more wariness in making changes a conservative is. And marriage is about the oldest institution there is.
This is a bit like saying that marriage isn’t a market place. Clearly it is, and it responds to factors such as supply and demand like any item which is traded among people. Your statement is more sentimental than factual. As far as the government is involved in it, it’s a contract.
Deeper spiritual understandings of marriage are beyond the realm of government law.
I’m not making a legal case. That is just the iceberg tip of the chaos to come.
Most formulations of civil unions are designed so that they attempt to grant all of the same privileges to same sex couples, as to avoid running afoul of liberal interpretations of equal protection under the law.
Peter,
Weather Report: 90% chance of fire and brimstone raining from the sky.
Travelers Advisory: When fleeing the area don’t look back.
Regards,
Jim
Marriage is not a marketplace. As far as government concerned, it is fundamentally different than a contract. A contract does not need the recognition of a third party to be operative.
This is not a question of spiritual understanding but the basic nature of marriage.
For what purpose does the gay/lesbian community want SSM? Is it mostly for the same rights granted to married heterosexual couples?
1. Tax benefits-we need to reform this anyway to say a flat or fair tax. This eliminates one argument.
2. Property rights-this can be arranged though a contract with a lawyer I would imagine (I’m no knowledge in this area, but seems doable)
3. Healthcare benefits-get the government out of this area and I’m sure some enterprising company would come up with some way to help out here. Better yet, HSAs that allow you to do what you want with that money toward whomever’s healthcare. It is your money after all.
4. Hospital visitation-I never understand this one. I’ve worked at a hospital for over 25 years and have never had a situation come up where somebody couldn’t visit because they weren’t legally married. Healthcare POAs are made everyday with non-family members.
If their purpose if not solely for the rights, but think it will change peoples minds about their lifestyle, this only makes things worse. People who have a problem with SSM do so mainly because they don’t think it is right on religious grounds. Having “the state” mandate it is OK will not change this one bit and only drive more of a wedge between them.
Personally, I think this is all just one more issue the left is using to destroy this country from its traditions and foundations. Give in here (or on open boarders or insert you favorite leftist cause) and it will just be on to the next thing.
No. Let’s look at this from two perspectives.
1. If you are not religious, then marriage is already nothing more than a contract, so what difference does it make?
2. If you are religious, marriage is not, and cannot be, defined by the government, or any man, or body of men. It is a religious institution defined by God. If you believe in God, marriage doesn’t need government involvement. No laws made by man can break my marriage, nor will man made laws strengthen it. To take care of the legal things like sharing health insurance, inheritance, etc., a contract is fine.
I agree with your second point. If you are not religious, what is the point of getting married other than the benefits granted to married couples. I just feel like the loudest voices for SSM are more for the destruction of traditional values than the legal things. As you state, there are other ways to accomplish that.
I am soooo confused….
Let me rephrase this from the opposite angle: what rights are being asked for by SSM advocates that are not separable or already separate from marriage? For example, custody and care of children is already subject to legal guardianship which exists separately from marriage. Power of attorney covers financial and medical decisions. Wills and other end of life documents cover inheritance. How does bundling these together into a single package called a civil union which accurately describes the arrangement in any way diminish marriage, and why does it require the actual term marriage be applied to these arrangements when they by definition are not marriages?