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.
In Defense of Two In Marriage
In many debates about same-sex marriage, traditionalists argue that marriage cannot be rationally defended as a relationship between two people once it is opened to same-sex couples. Those who favor state recognition of SSM — among whose number I count myself — generally blow off this objection, but provide little reason for their dismissal, let alone attempt a refutation.
I’d like to correct that omission and offer an argument for why civil marriage can and should remain restricted to couples, regardless of whether one favors or opposes SSM. I believe traditionalists are right to worry about legally-recognized polygamy and share their opposition to it. However, I believe that position can be more easily defended than is generally assumed. In short, I think this is an important battle that we can win.
What Is The Purpose of Civil Marriage And Why Does Government Have An Interest In It?
This has been the subject of considerable debate on Ricochet. Despite the furor, the debate has been more about emphasis than substance. While individuals may have other reasons for marrying — e.g., romantic love, religious conviction, etc. — the state is ill-equipped to evaluate them, and may not be directly interested in them anyway. However, the state can and should recognize marriage because it promotes the following:
- A nurturing and stable environment for children born to, or adopted into, that marriage;
- An emotionally and physically beneficent environment for sex;
- A well-tested and effective framework of mutual support and growth, be it financial, emotional, or personal.
Though most people would agree with these principles, significant differences emerge over their relative importance, and those disagreements generally determine one’s stance regarding SSM. Traditionalists, for instance, greatly emphasize the marriage’s role in procreation, while reformers tend to go with a more balanced approach, placing more emphasis on the spouses’ relationship to each other.
These three purposes work in concert, regardless of how they’re ranked, and with a great deal of positive feedback. Talking through daily trials makes both spouses feel better about, and closer to, each other and can help them become more productive; that happiness and stability can foster a regular and fulfilling sex life and positively influence them to have and effectively raise children. One can draw similar causalities at almost every intersection of these factors (though jokes about the challenges of enjoying an active sex life with small children around are also appreciated).
The state should have an interest because a society with successful marriages requires an infinitely lighter hand to govern. Marriage facilitates citizens taking care of, assuming responsibility for, and coordinating with each other. And while there’s obviously a good deal of self-selection going on — those who are uninterested in sexual exclusivity or assuming responsibility for others are less likely to marry — reason, anecdote, and data all confirm that marriage generally improves people.
How Polygamy Undermines Marriage’s Purpose
There are lovely people who enjoy polygamy, who thrive in it, and who would benefit from having their marriages recognized by the state. There are — to be sure — some benefits to be found in polygamy. Recognizing it, however, would cause far more harm to our society than good for reasons that are intrinsic to the practice.
First, the demand for polygamous marriages is probably much more elastic than for homosexual ones; i.e., a lot of people who might not otherwise might seek these polygamous unions would as a result of the legal change. Indeed, many people already live this way, with one (usually high status) man openly having relationships with — and several children by — multiple women concurrently. This is hardly a phenomenon exclusive to breakaway Mormon sects.
Second, these relationships are highly unstable. Jealousy is a major and persistent obstacle among the polyamorous. Moreover, each additional spouse fundamentally undermines the ability for spouses to find mutual support in each other. Reciprocality is vastly more difficult among three parties than between two. If a man’s wife is in need, he can — and is encouraged to — prioritize her concerns over all other obligations, including work, friends, and family. However, both of one’s wives can’t be his top priority at any given time, and their needs and desires may be in opposition to each other. While this is true in homosexual relationships, it is especially true for heterosexual ones.
Third, to the extent polygamous marriages are successful — as some no doubt are — they inevitably lead to the permanent exclusion of some men from marriage. Creating a surplus of men who are literally unable to find a wife is a known recipe for social tension with the potential to lead to all kinds of dangers. This unavoidable externality alone makes polygamous marriages fundamentally different from both traditional and SSM-friendly marriage regimes.
In short, polygamous marriages directly compete with monogamous ones, have inferior outcomes in comparison, and adversely affect those outside of them. Even if one argues that recognizing same-sex marriages will have negative effects on society as a whole, the harm is both much more restricted and far less direct.
Conclusion
People have the right to order their lives as they see fit, according to their own needs, desires, and understanding of their situation. Properly understood, government only has the power to prohibit its citizens’ actions when they can be shown to directly harm others. Even if I am correct that polygamy is dangerous, its harms are too indirect and diffuse to warrant prohibition. If people want to live polygamously, they have every right.
Whether their relationships — or any relationships — should be recognized, sanctioned, and promoted by the state is a separate matter. To the extent the state engages in social engineering, it should be limited only to those activities that have proven themselves successful through tradition and experience. Any changes should be subject to careful, informed conjecture about possible effects. Regardless of the merits of SSM, polygamous relationships have neither a positive history nor a good prognosis, and should therefore be opposed.
Published in General
I’m the one who has given up, not Jennifer. :)
Why give up on something with such a massive impact on our society? It took the abolitionist movement decades and a Civil War to finally see their goal fulfilled. Nothing is inevitable.
Tom,
Good luck with that.
Z
One problem is that the legal imposition of SSM establishes precedent for the legal imposition of polygamy on the same equal-protection grounds, as I’ve tried to illustrate in earlier comments.
If we could at least agree to draw a line in the sand and fight back against the judicial imposition of SSM, we could establish that there is no Constitutional right to “whatever form of marriage I want.” Marriage would in practice be whatever the majority votes for, so as long as a majority continues to reject polygamy we’d have some hope of stopping it.
Yes, and if we (I mean we traditionalists) are correct about the vital interest society has in marriage, then I believe that the reality will reassert itself and the need for something like marriage to administer to society’s interests in procreation will be obvious once again. Even if it takes decades of pain in the wilderness and perhaps a few fallen cultures being replaced by newly vigorous and ascendant ones.
Yes, for some reason a lot of people have to learn things the hard way
Let’s stipulate this. In the meantime, you’re going to want to hold onto whatever territory you can.
By way of analogy, Ukraine has lost Crimea. Fait accompli. Perhaps it can get it back at some point, but it’s part of Russia for the foreseeable future. If you want a chance to get it back, best accept the temporary loss and figure out a way to defend Kiev.
If you don’t like one plan for doing so, find a better one.
I guess, for me, I don’t see your plan as being different enough from the traditionalists.
Right. I agree with Ed that this argument, while well thought out, just falls pray to the same attacks as traditional marriage. I think the problem with any of these thread-the-needle types of arguments is they’re only convincing to the people who want to believe them. I doubt someone is going to read this type of thing, no matter how well constructed, and change their mind. This is really one of those things that’s going to have to rest on the evidence, because the arguments aren’t the type that smack people upside the head make them go, “Of course!”
Though, I’m not yet convinced polygamy is an inevitable as SSM. There’s just not enough people who know personally thoughtful healthy polygamists for it to be as susceptible to the empathy arguments.
Point well taken, but I think it’s worth noting that polygamy has been tried many times before and that the results have not been recommending.
Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.
–Edmund Burke
By the way, tag maker, what’s “Ploygamy”?
Do we have to worry about yet another type of crazy marriage that I haven’t even heard of yet?
One might argue: But aren’t we more civilized/understanding/respectful than those cultures? It may have been more damaging in the past, but now we’re in a place morally where we can handle it healthily. Two person couples can be damaging too, we shouldn’t exclude healthy polygamous marriages just because it has a higher proportion of rotten apples.
Oh it’s really crazy. Sexy, too.
But I meant just humdrum polygamy. Fixed. :)
I get frustrated when a debate over important principles gets conflated with a debate over political tactics.
I agree that Ukraine is unlikely to retake Crimea any time soon, but I don’t see how it would help their cause to concede that Russia was justified in seizing it by force. Indeed, accepting the legitimacy of the annexation would remove any grounds for protesting if Putin decides to annex more Ukrainian territory in future.
I concede that SSM will likely be imposed nationwide by the Supreme Court in the near future, and will likely remain legal for the rest of my life. I don’t see why that means I should concede that this is legitimate or justified, nor how doing so will help prevent legalized polygamy.
Tom, I need to cogitate on your argument, but in the mean time I commend you for taking it on. I haven’t had time to read the reaction, but I assume you stirred up the usual hornet’s nest of libertarian purists.
Heh, heh. Welcome to the other side, friend.
What to do? Reject the premises. Demand answers (what is the rational basis for any limitations on marriage?). Same as any other fight.
1) A nurturing, stable environment is provided to children in a marriage in which the parents value nurturing and stability. One could argue that a homosexual couple cannot provide the fullness of nurturing and stability as they lack the attributes provided by either a father or a mother. And I would. That we so easily dismiss the importance of mothering and fathering does not bode well for society, whatever the outcomes for SS couples.
2) I reject this outright. Having one’s relationship labeled “marriage” is certainly no guarantee of an emotionally and physically beneficent environment for sex. I seem to recall the stats for domestic violence among gays is shocking, and I find the claim that “marriage” will solve that to be incredible. I think there’s also a strong bioethical case to be made against sodomy, but I’d rather not go there in this discussion. Let’s just say I don’t believe it’s possible for sodomy to be beneficent.
3) I’m shocked, shocked at what you think civil “marriage” can do for people, Tom. And I’m bemused that you’re so willing to engage in progressive experimentation on such a foundational institution.
Otherwise? What Joseph said.
To be fair, this isn’t a new position for Tom. He has always argued that civil marriage is vital and legitimate. He just disagrees with us about exactly why it’s vital and legitimate. That’s why I’ve always said that Tom has a unique position on Ricochet and probably within the wider debate too.
Great! And how’s that going?
I’m a little confused as to whether you reject these points because their formulation could include gay folks, or whether you think they’d be wrong even for heteros.
Like I said, I’m a statist on marriage. I think I’m the only person on Ricochet who’s ever plead guilty to the label in any context.
Oh, I agree. While I do not doubt Tom’s good intentions, I just think it’s wishful thinking. The probability that it’s a minority position within the SSM-approving coalition does not portend well for our society having civil SSM and monogamy too.
Not concede that it’s justified or legitimate, just accept that it’s happened. Bemoaning the injustice won’t bring it back.
Now I’m confused. Aren’t you trying to justify and legitimate SS coupling? I thought that was the point of allowing them to marry.
I deny that gays can approximate the ideals for nurturing, stable child rearing due to the lack of certain attributes belonging either to mothers or fathers. And, then, when gays include someone of the opposite sex to help parent their child, I’d suggest that having three parents lends itself to a certain instability with which we’re all too familiar in this broken marriage culture. It’s the very nature of homosexual unions which disqualify them from the “marriage” you’re promoting.
It’s slow and tortured. Definitely an uphill battle with only one-person-at-a-time small victories in sight. But that just makes it a worthy fight.
So my first and second bullets would be applicable if they included the phrase “between one man and one woman”?
Looks to me like you’re losing badly. And not just in the courts, but at the ballot box where 11 state legislatures (plus DC) have approved it since 2010. During that time, traditionalists have only expanded into North Carolina.
It is happening, present tense. It hasn’t yet happened, past tense.
Here’s a nifty chart on wikipedia showing the current status of marriage laws state-by-state. Note that there are still well over a dozen states colored red where SSM is not recognized.
Go ask same-sex couples in those states if they agree that the battle is over and there’s nothing more to fight about. Are they willing to lay down their arms and accept a truce, with the law as it currently stands today?
Yes. Marriage, as it has long been understood, is unitive and procreative. From a Christian/religious perspective it is modeled on the love of God for His Church — His people. Implied in it is total self-sacrifice — not self-gratification.
Although it will surely make Christopher Hitchens spin in his grave, it’s my opinion that the West will not survive secularization, because it detaches us from such philosophical/theological roots underlying such critically important institutions as marriage. We’re currently surviving off the residual sap of a once living cultural tree. That will stop flowing one day soon and one reason will be the obliteration of the meaning of “marriage.”
Are you arguing a utilitarian position? Because you’re losing on SSM, give up that front and draw a line at polygamy? You do realize, SoCons are much more ideological than that, right? We have to fight for truth, not electoral victories.
It’s interesting that you count legislatures as “the ballot box.” In state referenda, has there ever been a popular vote legalizing SSM?
Obamacare was passed into law, upheld by the Supreme Court, and despite a bunch of glitches healthcare.gov is up and operational (more or less). Social Security was passed back in the ’30s, Medicare in the ’60s. Both are quite popular programs, with support among majorities of even GOP voters.
When was the last time small government conservatives eliminated so much as a department of the federal government, let alone a major and popular entitlement program?
We lost. Get over it. Big government is here to stay. We need to nominate managerial progressives and campaign on the grounds that we can administer the welfare state more efficiently than the Democrats can. Maybe that way we can at least stop the next progressive initiative to expand the state even further.