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.
Secular Conservatism, Libertarians, Progressives, and Marriage
I take conservatism to be an appreciation and defense of what has been proven to work, and which benefits society and the individual in a balance.
If that seems overly-broad, let me provide an example. Morality is effective in curbing largely destructive impulses and reactions, therefore morality is worth defending in principle, with some room for debate on many fronts. Not all morality is the same, and it is not always helpful in the particulars. But to hold that morality is not a necessary part of society is anti-conservative in my view, as morality is the most tested method for a society to control its own behavior with respect for the society and the individual in balance.
Libertarianism is a radical extreme that places no value on society as a body, and progressivism is a radical extreme that places no value on the individual. Conservatism is the compromise position arrived at through experience, and stored in our cultural traditions as the wisdom of the ages. To a secular conservative, the Bible is one of many instruments to this end. Just because there is a religious proscription against adultery doesn’t mean that only religious people can defend a belief that adultery is harmful to individuals and society. Likewise with other religious proscriptions.
Religion is, of course, a large component of the conservative movement, but philosophically it is not a necessary component of a thoroughly conservative position. Not even for marriage. I view the partnership between religion and conservatism as a co-development from a common origin. Shared predicates yield shared conclusions, and therefore common interest. Where religion ascribes things to God, secular conservatism agrees to the extent that it is destructive of society and the individual for mankind to mess with certain things. Progressivism on the other hand is the confidence that a small group of people in the present know better than (on the one hand) everybody else across time, and better than (on the Other hand) God in His infinite wisdom. Secular conservatism and religion get along just fine as defenders of our culture.
I see value in describing much of libertarianism as allied with progressivism, because conservatism is where the middle is, and to pull us off that mark either this way or that is just as destructive. If a movement seeks to abolish our traditions as proven over time, it is not conservatism. Progressivism and libertarianism get along just fine as disruptors of our culture.
There is already a philosophical position consistent with conservatism which enshrines human rights and the liberty of the individual: it is called conservatism.
Now, not every tradition is valuable, and a slavish devotion to traditions which are not good is not conservatism; that’s mechanism, on the process level. Radical opposition to a flawed and failing government is not anti-conservative, but radical opposition to the institutions of our culture, most definitely is.
For example, you could argue that big spending by government is now a tradition and that it is therefore conservative to defend it and radical to oppose it, but this is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it may be a tradition, but empirically it has not been proven to be a useful one. Some spending is necessary, some spending is excessive — making judgements is important, and at any rate, even if all projects were equally worthy, the sheer sum of spending which displaces other worthy but non-government projects must be taken into account and weighed for relative merit. Big spending is anti-conservative because it is destructive.
Second, the dependencies come to play in that objects and policies are not the only subjects to be appreciated and defended. The decision to spend less is no less valuable than the process by which we arrive at that decision, and its implications. If we feel that the accumulated wisdom vouchsafed in our culture is probably more valuable as a guide for society (in the aggregate) than the intellect spawned in a few brilliant fellows, then a process which lends itself to operation gently over time by many rather than abruptly, once, by the few is an inherently conservative method of arriving at conclusions. Big spending is anti-conservative because it operates through an anti-conservative process.
As the free market is operated gently by many, and government spending is operated forcefully by few, any problem not specifically recommended for government remedy is probably better handled outside of government. So no matter how “traditional” big spending may have become, it is not conservative in itself, and it is not conservative to defend it merely because it is the status quo.
Marriage pre-dates any law. It simply is, and it is between one man and one woman. This may sound circular, or like a “no true Scot” defense, but I assert it as a foundational fact. Marriage is not produced by law any more than our rights are. Marriage is enshrined and defended by law in our culture, and if the law should fall, marriage would remain, just as our rights do. The law does not trump marriage.
This should not be too alarming; conservatism is a platform, a set of positions. Some planks rest upon others and not all must be as heavily pedigreed. I hold that marriage is a foundational plank in the conservative platform. I hold that marriage is an emergent cultural defense against various destructive impulses and reactions, including those of jealous males, engineering females, and hostile out-group sentiment. Good manners are a defense against some offenses which can become lethal, and marriage is a defense against outrage.
Humans are sexual beings (as our grade-schoolers are reminded every minute by government busybodies), and many of our impulses and reactions are not rational in the way we would like, no matter how logical they may be from a chromosome’s point of view. As manners are typically maintained by society itself, morality is often maintained by religion as a specific example of a philosophy operating in context.
As the male-female pairing is not up for debate in conservatism (I challenge you to convince me that it is not what has been proven to work), so the societal adaptation which defends it is a necessary component of conservatism. I realize that many “conservatives” disagree with this, but they are mistaken about either their conservatism or their conclusions.
Published in General
You’ve got it right.
I won’t disagree, but he still thinks marriage is a relatively useless institution that needs to be radically redefined because he doesn’t see the purpose it served for thousands of years as being useful in today’s “modern world.”
My point was, I felt the same way when I was 20, now that I’m approaching 50, I see the immense value in marriage and think society will be harmed if we radically redefine it to appease Sal and 2% of the population.
I think a big part of the disagreement that we’re having is that I don’t consider SSM to be nearly as radical a change to marriage as you do.
A) I exaggerate the libertinism and b) I read a lot and continued to learn from the world, and c) I lived for several years in the Former Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe.
I can think of no better place than the Former Soviet Union to convince someone that both limited government and personal restraint are the keys to long term happiness.
A Gallup poll in May showed support for SSM at 55%. A Washington Post/NBC poll in March had support at 59%. There hasn’t been a national poll in at least two years which consistently found opposition to SSM to be a majority position. It isn’t just me and the gays.
Understood, which is what I mean when I say you don’t see the value it has served for thousands of years. You see marriage as something that benefits the adults, I see marriage as something that benefits the children (and the adults indirectly). Since you don’t see children as being the integral part of marriage that it has been for millennia, you don’t see the government calling people that are not capable of biologically producing a child “married” as a minor redefinition, when it is, whether you agree or not, a radical redefinition of the term.
You also don’t think redefining the word will have any impact on how people treat the institution. We definitely disagree on that.
You also don’t think that the privileges and subsidies that government has historically attached to marriage when marriage was defined as a nuclear family will change when that definition is no longer true, whereas I think it will necessarily result in eliminating most ofthem.
55% of the population elected Obama. Forgive me if I don’t base my values on Gallup Polls.
But I agree that SSM is inevitable. We just disagree on whether it is salutary.
I strongly believe that Democracies have the right to self-destruct.
Again, that’s not really accurate. I agree that marriage is something which provides benefits to children. I just dispute your assertion that SSM will remove those benefits.
Relatively useless institution? The man is only getting married. What would he be doing that for if he thought it was a relatively useless institution?
And it’s not as if Sal is such a repellant person that the only way he can attract a woman’s attention is by promising to marry her :-)
Marriage is a costly investment, especially these days for men. Do you think Sal is foolish enough to make such a costly investment without perceiving its great value? Do you think the rest of us married libertarians are? We act as if marriage has great value. Our actions should count for something, no matter what you think of our words.
I’m not saying you should base your values on popular opinion. I was disputing a specific (and somewhat snide) remark you made about SSM being about appeasing me and 2% of the population. It may be wrong, but support for SSM is the majority position.
Maybe I should have added the word “primarily.”
If marriage primarily benefits the children, how can eliminating any remaining connection between marriage and children not remove those benefits.
Really, I know I sound like a broken record, but I dispute that SSM takes the nuclear family out of marriage. If you’re going to tell me what I think it would be a good idea to actually know what I think.
I don’t think it does eliminate the connection between marriage and children.
Maybe we disagree on what the word “nuclear family” means.
How many SS couples that get married do you think will produce a child that is the genetic recipient of the two parents?
My definition of a nuclear family includes having both a male and a female adult. No SS couples will have that balance.
As always, I deeply appreciate your votes of confidence.
I think we probably do disagree on the meaning of nuclear family. I don’t think it has anything necessarily to do with biology. My adopted brother and sister are part of my nuclear family, just as much as my biological brother.
I was going to quote this later, but I’m doing it now to respond in part to MFR.
Sal is making my point here. He’s said he doesn’t feel the need to marry his girlfriend to have kids with her, he is getting married to reap the benefits. And yet, he doesn’t think that peoples’ behaviors will change when we give those benefits to people who “marry” their roommate so the roommate can get free/subsidized health insurance.
That’s not quite my view. I was speaking of state-sanctioned, as opposed to sacramental, marriage. I would engage in a sacramental marriage regardless of state recognition, but as long as the state want’s to give me stuff for getting married I might as well take its largess.
But we had already long allowed that so long as the roommates were of opposite sexes. How do you see SSM as fundamentally changing things in this regard?
Edit:
Similar comment already made.
A) There are relatively few monogamous roommates of opposite sex and B) by removing any connection between marriage and children, the social barriers to entry (and exit) will be lowered considerably.
Have to get back to the day job. Will have to pick this up later.
Well, you can engage in sacramental marriage without seeking state recognition.
Asquared, Ed,
Taking Sal’s reply in context, it sounds to me he’s getting married because he loves his fiancee and wants to spend the rest of his life with her and raise kids with her. Since he’s getting married anyhow, he might as well fill out the right paperwork to collect currently-available marital benefits, even if he doesn’t fully agree with the current legal regime regarding marriage:
If you’re going to persist in making that claim about removing the connection between marriage and children I really think you should explain the reasoning behind it. SSM does not alter the relation of marriage to children, though it could be argued to alter the relation of marriage to procreation.
Bingo.
Just because it seems to be an additional matter of contention I’d like to clarify something. I do not consider the “get the government out of marriage” position to be the equivalent of the “abolish the institution of marriage” position. I support the former, not the latter.
Why should I forego the benefits of state recognition of my marriage?
How is that relevant?
Even short, douchey lawyers deserve to have their virtue – such as it is – defended :-)