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
If, however, we determine after a few years that SSM does lead to undesirable outcomes, what will advocates propose as a remedy? Are we so certain that things will work out that we need do no more than wait and see? Much of the SSM argument involves onus shifting, i.e., that defenders of traditional marriage must prove the harms of SSM, when the burden ought to be on those who would re-engineer an understanding that has existed in every society at all times–marriage is between man and woman. Even polygamous societies have recognized this. Marriage is still between male and female, even if many males and females. Do we really imagine that changing that will have no deleterious effects? Should we not try to anticipate these?
Any undesirable outcomes will be easily explained as the result of institutionalized homophobia, just as any negative outcomes in minority communities are the result of institutionalized racism.
After all, if same-sex couples cannot hire their first choice florist or get married in the same church as their parents, this puts them at a disadvantage. We need to first remedy all such lingering inequalities before we can expect to see equal outcomes.
It’s a fad. The real nature of the mess will soon become apparent. Then we’ll have to set about fixing it. Thankfully most of the world are not politically correct idiots, so there will be places to go.
Just repeating that I was saying that this is what would be said, not that I saying it. :)
But I’ve been thinking about this. Marriage laws have been struck down because they discriminate. Meaning that anyone can connect with anyone else.
If states at one time were responsible for, say, blood tests to make sure that people were not transmitting STDs or that the couple weren’t related, the state’s aren’t doing that now, at least from what I’ve read. So people don’t need the state’s permission to marry. They haven’t for some time, as a matter of fact–people are free to cohabitate. There are no legal barriers to cohabitation. Not even age barriers. Why would anyone bother to get a license from town hall at this point?
Actually, why would anyone bother to get married?
Exactly.
No matter how many words get piled up here, the premise of the post is ridiculous. Having abandoned the foundations of both conservatism and libertarianism, the only thing left standing is one person’s personal preference dressed up like an argument.
No doubt there’s a position waiting on the Supreme Court.
Not because they are bullets in argument. Because that is what marriage is, in a definition older than laws. It is hubris to argue the merits of pronouncements beyond the reach of Man.
How is this anything other than the Progressive argument? Which, by the way, I assert is incompatible with conservatism. Not just different, but wrong and bad. This should not be controversial in a “conservative” forum.
Of course we have ample evidence on the effect of public acceptance of perversions. There is plenty of debate to go around, but not over what is conservative. I can get this debate over at Kos or DU.
This is pretty funny, actually. “But we never meant THAT far!”
Horse. Barn door. We told you it was Pandora’s Box. You said “Open It!” Enjoy the results.
Next up to bat after Polygamy: state endorsement of incestuous marriage.
>>This is pretty funny, actually. “But we never meant THAT far!”
>>Horse. Barn door. We told you it was Pandora’s Box. You said “Open It!” Enjoy the results.
At the very least, Tom, don’t trot out the arguments that didn’t work last time and expect them to work this time.
There are a hundred ways in which the tax code treats married couples differently than individuals. In most, but not all, cases, the overall effect is positive on the family finances for the married couple. The first that comes to mind is Social Security spousal benefits. There are lots of other aspects to this, which are numerous and deserving of a separate post. Follow the money.
As a conservative Christian, I object to using government resources to support a lifestyle that I think is self-destructive to the participants.
Marriage was always based on 4 criteria. 1. That the people marrying are not related 2. The number of people marrying no less and no more than 2 qualifies as a marriage 3. The gender is male and female and 4. The people are consenting adults. If you strip away gender and it no longer matters as to the definition of what a marriage is, then why should the number of people marrying? You will get the very selfsame arguments we get on behalf of gay marriage. How does it affect you? It isn’t your marriage! You don’t like it don’t do it! It is about love! They used to ban interracial marriage! Well, they ban all types of marriage. They ban adults from marrying children. They ban children from marrying each other. They ban relatives from marrying. They used to ban the same sex for marrying. The argument that conflates gay marriage bans with interracial marriage bans will continue to spread unabated. People well say get with the times. You aren’t for polygamy? You’re just like those hicks who used to ban blacks and whites from marrying. This is the door that has been opened. You really against polygamy? Well, be against gay marriage as well because we just opened the door to polygamy through gay marriage. In fact polygamy will have more of a shot than gay marriage has. Just wait until polygamy is brought before the courts as a 1st amendment and an equal protection issue on behalf of religions that practice it to this day. Good luck.
I admire Tom for making the attempt. Where are the rest of the libertarians on this? Mike H but none of the others after four pages of comments? Why is that?
It is significant that the words “mother” and “father” never appear in this post. Any argument for SSM that refers to children has to abstract from the concrete reality of mothers and fathers into the abstraction “parenting.” The unspoken but critical premise is that neither mothers nor fathers are necessary for children; only “parents”.
I recently finished reading David Blankenhorn’s Fatherless America, a wonderful book written in the 1990’s that explored the decline in fatherhood and its effects. There was a moment of cultural consensus back then that fatherlessness was a real problem and the source of many of our social pathologies. In the last decade fatherlessness has, for some reason, been demoted as a topic of cultural conversation. You don’t hear about it much anymore, even though the trends Blankenhorn pointed out have only continued and their effects have become even more obvious.
I suspect the political agenda of SSM has had a lot to do with the dismissal of fatherlessness from the national conversation – for the insistence that what is needed is fathers and not just parents pretty much puts paid to SSM as far as children are concerned.
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.
Even more so for SSM, since it forces us to ignore, and even deny, the unique gifts that both fathers and mothers bring to childrearing – which is why Tom Woods avoids using the words “father” and “mother” in his original post. Two “parents” of whatever sex must be as good as a father and a mother for the argument to work.
Although I am against polygamy, it at least does not force us to deny the differences between mothers and fathers. One father and two mothers is better, I think, than no fathers and two mothers.
Once you walk away from tradition as a support of law, you have to refute “Well the dog seems to like it.”
I agree, though for a slightly different reason: it is a simple fact of biology that every child has exactly one father and exactly one mother.
In polygamy a child lives with his father, his mother, plus some other women who are married to his father.
In SSM, a child lives with at most one of his biological parents plus a step-parent. No child can literally have two mommies.
That is not of course to belittle the generous role that many step-parents and adoptive parents play in caring for other people’s children, but such an arrangement always falls short of the ideal.
This is a very popular argument, but I confess I don’t follow it at all.
I do appreciate the differences that men and women bring to parenting: my relationship with my dad, for instance, is different from my relationship with in no small part because of their differing sexes, and that’s a fine thing. Men and women are different and that difference is part of what makes life rich and interesting. I know plenty of homosexuals who feel the same way, despite being or aspiring to be, SSM’d.
I don’t see how SSM will materially harm our societal understanding of this, as the overwhelming majority of couples will be heterosexual. I believe sex and gender are sufficiently robust and desired concepts to survive SSM undamaged.
Despite favoring SSM, I’m less bullish about surrogate SS parents. I certainly wouldn’t ban the practice, but I find it problematic in much the same way I find older heterosexuals using surrogates: as you’re starting with an inherent disadvantage (i.e., sex or age), why not just adopt rather than create a kid?
In fairness, a lot of people were missing from this thread (KC and Rachel come to mind).
For the record, I did use “man,” “woman,” “wife,” and husband throughout the section on polygamy.
I go back to my Russia/Ukraine analogy: Crimea is already in Russian hands, but Kiev is threatened. You can’t win both right now, so I’m suggesting we join forces on ground we both agree should be defended but hasn’t fallen yet.
Wow, Tom. You really don’t see the War on Gender Differences going on right now? Even during homecoming season (Homecoming “Queen” has a whole new meaning, have you noticed?). The War on Fathers? I mean, maybe as statistics, fatherless children are no big deal, but individually they’re a tragedy — and exactly what the Left is going for. More government dependents.
It’s not that SSM is the cause of these conflicts. It’s just another nail in the coffin of “marriage” and “family.”
I do. I think that stuff is infinitely more harmful to sex/gender difference than SSM.
No, I think the disconnect is the degree to which the concepts of marriage and parenthood are interconnected.
In the traditional view marriage is normative for parenthood: couples should get married before having children, and married couples should (if possible) have children.
In the modern view that Tom seems to be defending marriage is understood as a commitment between two people to spend their lives together (at least until one of them reconsiders and decides to seek a divorce). Parenthood is optional and an orthogonal concern. From that perspective, claiming that changing the definition of marriage will affect our understanding of parenthood almost seems like a non sequitur. What has the one to do with the other?
BTW, I’ll concede my arguments in this thread are vulnerable to some of the same attacks that have been leveled against gendered marriage. “We’ve tried that and it doesn’t work” is a valid line of criticism, even though I think the circumstances are different enough to counter that argument.
But in response to my asking for an alternative, the only response I’ve hear is stick with the same losing technique on the ground that you’ve already lost.
I strongly suspect that there will soon be a lot of research directed at developing a technique to transplant DNA from egg to sperm cells and vice versa, so that same-sex couples can produce children that are biologically derived from both “parents.”
Not quite.
I’ve said in other threads — and probably should have again in this one — that raising children is the most important function of marriage.
Where I disagree with traditionalists is in 1) believing it therefore to be a necessary or assumed function of marriage and 2) in believing that SSM meaningfully erodes that function.
To me, it’s like saying that protecting against attack and tyranny is the most important reason to own a firearm, though it’s equally fine to own a weapon for reasons that have nothing to do with defense (sport, collecting, etc.). Other folks — owning and advocating others own — firearms for target shooting does not impede my ability to defend myself and my family now, nor is it likely to in the future, as the demand for protection vastly outweighs the demand for collecting.
Undoubtedly, but I was referring to the fact that SS couples do have a disadvantage when it comes to raising children because they can’t model male/female roles as effectively as male/female parents.
Similarly, old folks have a disadvantage in that they’ll be old and infirm by the time their kids come of age.
Is raising children the most important function of same sex marriage?