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
Absolutely you did. But not “mother” or “father.
As with hetero marriage, it’s the most important function it can perform. Unlike hetero marriage, that’s not likely to be it’s main function in practice and it has some limitations with regard to it. If this sounds like I’m trying to move the goalposts, I apologize.
To revive the firearm analogy, the most important function a .22LR rifle can perform is home defense, though that’s probably not how it will be used and it’s less-than-ideally equipped for it.
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.
The distinctive contributions of mothers and fathers are very definitely under attack by SSM: Try arguing that two mommies or two daddies are not as good as a mommy and a daddy to the average SSM advocate. You will be firmly denounced as homophobic. The SSM campaign demands that it be celebrated in all aspects and is entirely as good as heterosexual marriage in every particular; anything less than this puts you in the enemy camp as far as SSM advocates are concerned.
Then there is the empirical fact that in the 1990s fatherlessness was widely recognized as a fundamental cause of many of our social pathologies. I remember the hope everyone had at the time that we had finally broken through on something the right and left could agree on and really make some progress. Then, for some reason, in the 2000’s everyone stopped talking about it, even though the problems Blankenhorn documented in Fatherless America only got worse. Now no one talks about it. Why is this? I think it is obvious that the reason is that identifying fatherlessness as a fundamental social ill butts head-on into the marriage equality cause, and the latter wins.
Conceded and I likely did that because I think SS couples can marry and raise kids (albeit with some overcomeable handicaps).
Just to be clear though, I didn’t do it because I think sex differences don’t exist but would be awful if they did.
I think there is a contradiction underlying this. Marriage cannot be both non-procreative AND be about raising children. (Sorry for the double negative.) Or, if that is a true statement, then children must always come from outside of marriage and be somehow attached to it.
And just to be clear: in comment #95 I mean “marriage as an institution,” not any particular couple’s marriage.
Jennifer- To say that a marriage has to be oriented toward procreation is analogous to saying that a corporation must be oriented toward profit. Procreation is one of the common goals of marriage in the same way that profit is a common goal for corporations, but it is not necessary for a marriage to be for the purpose of procreation in the same way that it is not necessary for an incorporated entity to seek profit. There are lots of childless marriages and there are lots of not for profit corporations.
Jennifer- re #95, the institution of marriage is just an aggregate of individual marriages.
Undoubtedly true. I don’t see how that invalidates the general argument.
See, I’d say it’s because the Right allowed itself to be suckered into worrying about a handful of yuppie gay guys wanting to adopt kids or use a surrogate when it should have been focusing more on the epidemic of fatherlessness among the underclass.
In #95 I was countering the opposing argument: that marriage, as an institution, is NOT procreative. How can marriage as an institution be not procreative, while at the same time saying that raising children is the most important function of marriage (from #88)?
There isn’t the conflict you seem to think there is. The procreative function of marriage is important, but not fundamental. Procreation is not the sine qua non of marriage.
I would argue that profit is the single most important fact for most corporations. That does not mean that the corporate form, as an institution, is fundamentally about profit.
I am not making the argument that marriage is procreative.
Tom didn’t say “raising children is the most important function of most marriages.” For the analogy to fit, you’d have to revise your wording to read:
Which, to me, reads as somewhat of a contradiction.
Rather than accept your proposed edit, I’d change the words “most corporations” to “the institution of incorporation.” The parallel is more precise and the alleged lexical contradiction removed.
The original post identifies 3 purposes to civil marriage:
Salvatore claims #1 is not fundamental, because some married couples don’t have children. What about #2, is it fundamental?
For instance, suppose Alice and Sue are old friends living together as roommates. They are both straight, and both always wanted children, but neither can seem to find Mr. Right. Alice finally gives up and decides to have a child on her own via sperm donor.
Then Sue comes up with a brilliant idea: let’s get married! This will fulfill goals #1 and #3 of marriage. It will create a nurturing and stable environment for Alice’s child, and create a framework of mutual support for the household. Two parents, and two incomes, are better than one, right?
From the couple’s perspective: yes. Procreation might not even be part of the equation. However, from society’s perspective, the reason for getting involved (via law and civil marriage) at all is procreation and it’s effects on society. Or, like Tom, do you think there is some other actionable reason to be involved? If I remember correctly, you don’t think society (through government and law) should be involved at all. So aren’t you then left in a quandary? Either pick an animating principle you disagree with for this institution you don’t think should exist, or remove any animating principle from this institution you don’t think should exist? Yes, I understand that government shouldn’t be involved, but it will continue to be involved. By what principle should it involve itself?
Perhaps from an individual viewpoint. But from a cultural viewpoint I’d say that is incorrect. Tradition and law aren’t merely reflections of an aggregate of individual marriages; that’s often a two way street.
What is then?
What is it about then? I’d say that the potential for profit, and it’s effect on society, is the reason society is involved at all through tradition and law.
It doesn’t even have to involve two women for this to happen.
I was thinking that, too. If Sue chose Aaron over Alice to have an affectionate-but-sexless companionship marriage with, the hypothetical would be unchanged.
Agreed. In fact this bolsters the point that gays have never been excluded from marriage. Gay men and women have always had the option to marry opposite-sex partners to claim all the legal and cultural benefits of marriage, and to fulfill purposes 1 and 3 on your list.
No doubt that historically many have done so. And further, many have procreated their own children since most are physically capable of doing so even if they find it distasteful or icky. Their children then grew up in a family with both of their biological parents.