Maggie Gallagher, one of the leading intellectuals of the anti-SSM movement, has done a truly remarkable crash and burn while guest-blogging on the prominent right-wing blog The Volokh Conspiracy. (Here’s a link to all her Volokh posts).
I should mention that Maggie and I have had a couple of polite exchanges, and although I disagree with her about virtually everything but the color of the sky I think she’s eloquent and smart. So I was genuinely surprised at how poorly she defended her views, given a conservative (albeit libertarian-leaning) forum and seemingly unlimited space. Kieran at Crooked Timber describes what happened:
Maggie Gallagher’s guest appearance at the Volokh Conspiracy has taken a rapid turn for the worse. She keeps putting up scattershot posts that resolutely fail to engage with any of the reasonable questions and criticisms an increasingly exasperated group of commenters have repeatedly offered her. It irritates the commenters no end that she begins posts with phrases like “Let me clarify” and then doesn’t clear anything up. The primary “reasonable question” Maggie won’t (or can’t) address coherently is this: How, specifically, will civil recognition of same-sex marriage alter heterosexual couple’s decisions to marry and/or divorce? (This is, of course, a question that no SSM opponent has ever answered with anything but hand-waving.) The low point, I think, is when – stretching to demonstrate an actual harm to heterosexuals caused by SSM – Maggie suggests that same sex marriage will destroy Western Civilization within two centuries: When anthropologists in the thirties went out into the vanishing world of human diversity, the reason they found marriage everywhere is that societies that do not hang onto the marriage idea do not survive very long. But marriage in a particular society is not inevitable; death by sexual disorganization is always an option. Happens quite a bit actually. cf. Roman empire. So in one sense I’m not worried about marriage. In spite of the progressive mythology that the drive to gay marriage is the irresistible wave of the future, I’m quite confident that 200 years from now, we’re not going to be living in a world where gay marriage is the norm. I’m just not sure of the place of Western civilization in that future world. Henry at Crooked Timber comments: “‘Explaining’ the collapse of Rome seems to be one of those historical Rorschach tests in which quack amateur sociologists stare into the inkblots and see their own prejudices and crackpottery staring back out at them.” For those who don’t want to wade through the 16,000 often painfully embarrassing words Maggie has written on Volokh so far, Orin Kerr provides a Cliff Notes version: The argument is that extending marriage to include same-sex couples would not just give rights to a small subset of the population, but would radically transform what marriage is. So long as only opposite-sex couples can marry, the thinking goes, marriage is linked to procreation; if same-sex couples can marry, too, then marriage is transformed into something else entirely. Adding same-sex marriage would ruin the old institution and create a new one, and the new institution would not longer retain a focus on having and raising children. Viewed in that light, same sex marriage is a threat to society: by redefining the institution, it will kill off its most important feature. Maggie agrees that Orin’s summary is “basically” accurate (although I think Orin ought to have written “procreating” rather than “having and raising children,” since Maggie’s argument de-emphasizes the raising of children). That’s it – that’s the very best case the anti-SSM folks have. No wonder the Volokh commenters are pissed. Maggie’s argument, taken in it’s best light, can’t support anything except the idea that SSM will lead to a slight marginal acceleration in the trends she’s worried about (and even that is giving Maggie’s case more credit than it merits). And – to paraphrase Volokh commenter Kate: Staving off a slight accelerating effect isn’t worth denying a class of citizens the dignity of having equal rights. It’s worth scanning the comments following Maggie’s posts – some of Volokh’s comment-writers provide smart rebuttals to Maggie’s arguments. Also, watch Volokh next week, when SSM-advocate Dale Carpenter will guest blog. Call me a crazy pop-eyed optimist, but I bet that Carpenter will be able to make a coherent case for his views – and do so without predicting Western Civ’s downfall.
Pingback: Lawyers, Guns and Money
I was going to use her posts on Volokh to summarise what’s-wrong-with-opposing-SSM, but I’m now wondering if that would even be fair.
The thing about Maggie’s posts (and the responding commentary) is that it is no different than any of the posts on Marriage Equality at Alas or a billion other sites. I suppose that the tone is much more civil, but there are no arguments from either side that I have not already seen.
Yes, Maggie Gallagher writes more pleasantly & more clearly than many others. However, her attempts to defend her anti-gay sentiments are logically unsound. Yes, she doesn’t like being a bigot & is trying valiantly & desperately to find some viable logic that will move her beliefs from the realm of bigotry to that of sound reasoning. You’d think that after years of trying and failing that she would either admit that she is anti-gay or drop her bigoted position or try some new angle from which to argue.
Finally, wrt her old, tired Marriage is About Procreation ™ argument – how come nobody ever realizes that, historically speaking, marriage was not about being a license to procreate? That, OTOH, marriage was about identifying the father of the child once a woman was pregnant? That this facet of marriage has survived very nearly to the present day (“shotgun” weddings)?
I’m tired of seeing the same old, factually refuted, bigoted arguments again and again and again.
(I must admit that I was pleased by the quality of the comments)
The primary “reasonable question” Maggie won’t (or can’t) address coherently is this: How, specifically, will civil recognition of same-sex marriage alter heterosexual couple’s decisions to marry and/or divorce? (This is, of course, a question that no SSM opponent has ever answered with anything but hand-waving.)
But this is an easy question to answer. I’m surprised at Maggie, frankly.
The answer is that there are a lot of heterosexuals who, for reasons of personal squickedess or religious belief or philosophical positioning, do not want to be associated with anything that is associated with homosexuality. If a club becomes a gay mecca, some straights will stop going there. There are straight vacationers who do not go to Provincetown anymore. There are gay-heavy neighborhoods where some straight people would not care to live. It is reasonable to assume that this aversion to connection with homosexuals applies to social institutions and behaviors as well – if country line dancing becomes associated with gays, then there are straights who will stop doing it. If marriage becomes associated with gays, then there are straights who will stop doing. It boils down to there being a lot of straight people who don’t want gays in their club. They don’t want to go out and club gays, generally, but they don’t want to associate or be associated with them, either.
It is certainly possible to counter this with the observation that such avoidance behavior is bigoted or intolerant or what have you, and by and large I would agree that it is bigoted and/or intolerant. But that’s immaterial; the phenomenon would exist.
A parallel phenomenon is that for many people, the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage would damage the institution. The logical arguments of people for whom this is not true are similarly immaterial; if you feel that an institution is damaged by the inclusion of someone, then for you it is damaged, regardless of the empirical facts. Emotional states are not often subject to rationality; that’s why they’re emotional. For these people, the inclusion of gays in the marriage arena would make marriage less valuable to them, and thus they would be less likely to participate in the institution.
As a personal example: my wife and I are not currently married in the Catholic Church, only civilly, because of her prior divorce. She has just finished having her first marriage annulled, and we are now proceeding along the path of having our union formalized by the church.
If tomorrow Pope Ratzinger went freakin’ nuts and said that homosexuality was completely cool, and that from now on Catholic marriage would be available as a sacrament for homosexual Catholics, the value of being married in the Church would drop to zero for me (and I assume for my wife, though I’m not sure.) I would have no further interest in participating in an institution that I would now view as being hopelessly compromised.
It is certainly possible to attribute this view to straightforward homophobia and bigotry, and I won’t argue the case (what would be the point?) But it nonetheless remains my actual reaction and my actual feeling on the subject. Add gays to the particular marriage institution I am en route to joining, and I no longer want to join.
Times whatever number of people feel the same way about civil marriage, and there’s your change in people’s decisions to marry.
The answer is that there are a lot of heterosexuals who, for reasons of personal squickedess or religious belief or philosophical positioning, do not want to be associated with anything that is associated with homosexuality. If a club becomes a gay mecca, some straights will stop going there. There are straight vacationers who do not go to Provincetown anymore.
I think that the analogy falls flat. Marriage is no more likely to “become associated with homosexuality” than, say, driving. The vast majority of homosexuals in the US drive – has this stopped any heteros from driving? I suppose that marriage could “become associated with homosexuality” if mainly gay folks were the ones getting married. But, with all the legal benefits conferred by governmentally recognized marriage, I can’t see that happening.
If a club becomes a gay mecca, some straights will stop going there. There are straight vacationers who do not go to Provincetown anymore.
I think it falls even flatter than Jake does since it isn’t true that people stop going to clubs or going on vacation. When my mother sold our house to a black family it did begin the slow process of changing our old neighborhood from predominantly white to predominantly black but it didn’t stop any of the whites from buying another house.
But marriage in a particular society is not inevitable; death by sexual disorganization is always an option. Happens quite a bit actually. cf. Roman empire.
It’s true. I found that my life was a mess, and sexual disorganization was to blame. Now I keep my libido in a hanging file, my hip boots shined, my teddies cleaned and hung in neat rows, and my sheets crisply ironed.
:::ducks:::
I think it falls even flatter than Jake does since it isn’t true that people stop going to clubs or going on vacation.
That’s true. They don’t stop going to clubs or on vacations; they just go somewhere where the gay people aren’t going, to replace the club or destination they no longer feel comfortable at. So in our analogy, they find or create other social institutions to replace the one where they are no longer comfortable.
Sure, I know people who stopped wearing their keys on the outside of their pockets after discovering that many gays viewed this as a “sign,” but this is of a different order of magnitude from marriage — gays are a tiny part of the population, they will never be the majority or even a significant minority of people availing themselves of marriage. This would be a lot easier if the government stopped being the purveyor of marriage and, as in Europe, there were a clear distinction between a marital union sanctioned and blessed by a church and a civil union recognized by the government. You can always rest assured that what your Catholic/Islamic institution has joined together never to be put asunder will never be duplicated for your gay friends and neighbors. The driving analogy is apt. So is going to an Ivy League School and learning how to cook.
While it’s understandable that from a religious point of view, marriage is sacred, it has nothing to do with non-religious unions. If two people truly love each other, why stop them from being able to have their union declared legal?
The argument that gay marriage will do nothing to increase birthrates, or even be of any good to the children, makes no sense. In a society where homosexuality is at least somewhat accepted, gay people will not marry straight people to begin with; it’s not like when two gay men live together, there’ll be “less choice in virile male specimen” for straight women; the same goes for lesbian women – they certainly don’t lessen the choice of baby-bearing birth-factories for straight men.
The argument that same-sex marriage (again, from a non-religious point of view) will influence “socially accepted” marriage in any way just plain doesn’t make sense. My sister is married with a woman, and the both of them are happy together. They don’t go out and tell everyone to get a divorce and marry someone of the same sex – they chose to do so because they love eachother. Neither of them would even want to marry a man, because, quite simply, they’re not attracted to men. I’ve lived in the same house with them, and they’re a perfectly normal married couple. With the arguments, fights, and mushy stuff “straight” couples have.
The argument that gay couples will have a bad influence on their children (either from a previous “straight” marriage or from adoption) is bunk. I know plenty of “straight” couples who screw their children over. Either by neglect, or spoiling them, or by simply not being able to show affection, or even by not having the time because mommy and daddy are always fighting. If anything, being a child of a gay couple will teach you tolerance for other people’s lifestyle.
From an absolutely pragmatic point of view, there is no evidence that proves that SSM damages the institution of marriage. And speaking of which… that so-called “sacred institution” was used to obtain land and other material ownership up until the 20th century by people who called themselves christian or catholic. Marriage was, for the longest time, a means to an end, resulting in many, many cases of adultery and suicides.
Personally, I’d rather see a kid with two parents who are happy together that are able to share their love and affection, than a kid with two “normal” (“normal” as in “being the society-implied norm”) who do nothing but fight eachother.
One of the other arguments – stating that being a kid in a homosexual relationship will make it harder to “confirm your own sexuality” – makes no sense whatsoever, and sets back the clock to a time where it was thought homosexuality was a disease that you could catch. Like you could “turn gay”. Remember that time? I think it was yesterday.
I’ve lived with my gay sister for a couple of years, and before that, I visited her often at her own place – with my girlfriends. I didn’t “turn” gay, nor did my girlfriends “turn” lesbian.
All that, again, from a non-religious point of view.
Robert, i’m not so sure that is really any better of an argument than Maggie’s, definitely not one that has good ‘rational basis’. Your (as in generic ‘you’) lowered comfort level of being part of an institution because someone else belongs to the same institution who you find ‘icky’ is not a rational argument to ban the ‘icky’ person from that institution. Even if by not banning that person the ‘icky’ feeling person leaves it. Especially if that institution is a governmental or public one.
If we based change and laws on that criteria we’d have to abolish fair housing laws (if those ‘icky’ blacks move in, then we move out… hurting our neighborhood, so we should allow banning of blacks in our neighbhorhood), allow the exclusion of Jews from public institutions (if that ‘icky’ Jewish man joins the AMA, we are leaving and taking our money and thus the AMA will be hurt and we should exclude Jews) or heck.. even could get rid of voting rights for blacks (if that black woman who makes me feel ‘icky’ can vote, i will not participate and our government will be hurt thus we should not allow those ‘icky’ people to vote).. or woman’s sufferage, or…..
It just doesn’t fly. Maggie and others have to come up with a much better argument than ‘it makes some people feel icky so it will hurt the institution.’
And the FRC’s lies about us being diseased, child-preying perverts ain’t it.
Robert, as Jake pointed out, your argument depends on predomination, which is not a possibility.
You said:
These are circumstances where the straight folks are outnumbered, physically. Even your line-dancing analogy admits of this explanation. If line-dancing becomes a gay cultural phenomenon, when one goes line-dancing, one could expect to be physically surrounded by gay people.
First, participating in the institution of marriage does not require one to be in the physical presence of lots of married people (excluding of course all those relatives at the wedding itself). We all come into contact with married people all the time, and not appreciably moreso if we’re married ourselves. If 7% of all married couples were same-sex, folks who were unmarried would not have any less contact with same-sex married couples that married folks would.
Second, even if physical presence is not an important factor; even if straight people will go to some length not to do things that are predominantly gay, there are not enough gay people to tip that balance.
Or, more to the point, if there were enough gay people to create the perception that getting married is a “gay thing,” so that straight people vote against it with their feet, then this already would have happened with voting. Lots of gay people vote. There are whole gay political organizations flaunting their right to vote. In public!
Yet straight people keep going to the polls, flagrantly risking association with this gay institution.
Are you really saying that if, say, 7% of married couples are same-sex, that a substantial portion of the straight population will forgo marriage?
Robert: You do realize that if you substituted “black” for “gay” and “white” for “straight” your argument would work just as well as an argument against allowing racial minorities to marry, don’t you? There certainly are whites who are squicked by blacks to the point that they will stop going places that blacks go, stop doing things that get associated with black culture, etc. Mainstream whites don’t associate with whites who do those things, but these people do exist. However, we do not demand that society accomedate the delicate sensibilities of a few members of the majority at the expense of the rights of the minority.
It seems to me that if a person from the majority is squicked or offended by a person from a minority (be it a minority race, religion, sexual orientation, or color of socks) acquiring rights and privileges traditionally but unfairly reserved for the majority, then the problem is the attitude of the person from the majority, not the newly acquired rights of the minority.
Trey:
It just doesn’t fly. Maggie and others have to come up with a much better argument than ‘it makes some people feel icky so it will hurt the institution.’
Sorry. Check your logic. You’re asserting that because people’s feelings aren’t rational, they don’t exist. You are in the position of arguing that because the people who decided United stock was worthless were wrong, they didn’t make the trades they did, and so United’s stock value wasn’t really damaged.
People being wrong to feel a particular way doesn’t mean they don’t feel that way.
The predomination argument similarly fails. As I made very clear in my own personal example: add one gay couple to Catholic marriage, and it becomes valueless to me. It doesn’t become damaged by 1 / 500,000,000th, in proportion to the number of gay/straight couples; it becomes valueless. For reasons that I will acknowledge as being motivated by animus against homosexuals, their inclusion in any quantity in this institution makes it of no value to me.
Does everyone feel that way? Certainly not. There are millions of straight people – quite likely a substantial majority of the straight population – who could care less that there are gay couples getting married. However, the question raised was not “would everyone stop getting married”. The question raised is “how will gay people getting married alter heterosexual’s decisions to marry”. And the answer is, some minority of us (a substantial minority in my view, but I could be wrong) will choose not to marry, because the institution will have lost some or all of its value to them.
You have to consider the countervailing tendency as well: some of those hypothetical couples, who avoid civil marriage once queers can marry, will be balanced out by heterosexual couples who currently don’t get legally married because they don’t want to participate in a bigoted institution.
However, I can see one reason Maggie might not want to use the argument you suggest (although I don’t know if it’s Maggie’s reason or not, of course – I can’t read her mind). Your suggested mechanism, unlike any I’ve ever seen Maggie or any other leading opponent of SSM suggests, is empirically falsifiable. It puts Maggie in the position where she can potentially be proved wrong by evidence.
All we have to do to test your theory is wait several years and then see if the rate of new heterosexual marriages among residents of Massachusetts have gone up or down compared to a demographically and culturally similar state (say, Connecticutt). If you’re right, then there will be a large decline in MA compared to CT, due to hetero couples either refusing to get married or choosing to move to other states before getting married.
My prediction is you’ll be wrong; there won’t be a significant change in MA’s new marriage rates compared to similar states (apart from a small increase due to same-sex couples marrying).
There – now we’ve both made empirical predictions. We’ve both put ourselves in the position where we can be proved wrong. But I don’t expect that Maggie will ever put herself in that position.
* * *
Now, moving from the question of why Maggie didn’t use your argument, to your argument itself…
I don’t think that’s really the relevant example, Robert. My question to you is, if same-sex marriages become legally recognized in the US (regardless of what the Catholic church does), would you either get a civil divorce or renounce your citizenship and move to another country?
My question to you is, if same-sex marriages become legally recognized in the US (regardless of what the Catholic church does), would you either get a civil divorce or renounce your citizenship and move to another country?
You’ll not be rid of me that easily. ;)
I would not get divorced. But if for some other reason we got divorced, or if my wife passed away, I would definitely have less interest in getting remarried civilly. I’d probably bend to my new partner’s preferences. She wants a wedding; fine. However, it doesn’t mean what it used to mean, and I wouldn’t attach much value to it.
Robert: You’re asserting that because people’s feelings aren’t rational, they don’t exist.
No, I believe Trey is asserting that when people’s feelings aren’t rational, other people need not let someone else’s irrational feelings sway their actions; and where civil rights are concerned, certainly an irrational feeling of “those people are ICKY” ought not to be allowed to influence legislation.
The predomination argument similarly fails. As I made very clear in my own personal example: add one gay couple to Catholic marriage, and it becomes valueless to me.
So if any Catholic priest, anywhere, marries a same-sex couple by Catholic rites, to you every Catholic marriage everywhere becomes worthless?
Well, I believe you: I had a fundamentalist-Christian acquaintance once, whom I asked (we were having a discussion: it was on topic) if it could be proved to her, absolutely, that Jesus Christ and John the Beloved Disciple were lovers, would it change her opinion of homosexuality, or of Jesus? She thought about it – not for very long – and said that it would change her opinion of Jesus.
I think, however, this is a question of religious belief rather than turning down civil rights. You know that gay people are getting married – legally married – in the US today: can you honestly say that this means you are now unwilling to get married yourself, legal civil marriage, should the occasion arise? (Forgive me if I am offensive: I have no idea what your personal circumstances are.)
However, it doesn’t mean what it used to mean, and I wouldn’t attach much value to it.
Not the wedding, Robert: the legal civil marriage. You would not attach much value to the legal benefits of marriage, since gay people now share them?
Robert, I don’t think your comparison of clubs, line dances and whatnot to marriage is useful, because you’re comparing institutions that people place relatively low values on (to join club A or club B) to one that people place a uniquely high value on – getting married.
Put in economic terms, people find it easy to give up on items for which acceptable substitutes are available (i.e., going to the movies rather than going line dancing); if you raise the price of white bread (or associate white bread with homosexuals or French people or some other unpopular group), more people will switch to a substitute, such as bagels. But if there’s an item for which no ready substitute is available, such as gasoline, then few people will use substitutes – which is why recent soaring gas prices have only led to a marginal increase in bike riding and walking.
And if an item has no substitute and is essential– like breathing – then no matter how high the cost is raised, people will still use it.
As Maggie herself has said over and over, there is no substitute for marriage – and for many people, marriage is essential. That’s doubly true for parents, the main class Maggie is concerned with, since a large number of parents (including Maggie) believe that their children’s well-being is strongly enhanced by married parents. So basic economics suggests that the substitution effect you’re talking about will be very small.
I’m being a bit tongue in cheek putting it in econ terms, but the basic point is true – you’re comparing things that people value much less than marriage to questions like “which club do I join?” or “do I do archery or line dancing?” Given how much more people value their marriages than line dancing, I don’t think your comparison is persuasive.
You would not attach much value to the legal benefits of marriage, since gay people now share them?
Less value.
No, I believe Trey is asserting that when people’s feelings aren’t rational, other people need not let someone else’s irrational feelings sway their actions;
They don’t need to, but they ought to if they want to be in contact with reality.
I have an irrational belief that you are a communist spy about the detonate a nuclear bomb, and so I am going to kill you. Should you let my irrational feelings sway your actions and thus stay the hell away from me, or call the cops? Only if you’re not a complete idiot.
There seems to be a conflation going on. I am not saying “straight people won’t get married because of gays getting married, and thus gays must not be allowed to get married.” (If you check out my blog you will see that I believe gays should have access to civil marriage.) I am responding to the question – “what will straights do”. Some straights will stop getting married.
Just to make sure we’re still on the same page, I’ll echo Jesu in pointing out that we’re discussing marriage, not weddings.
What about your children? There’s a ton of research showing that children in households with married parents are (on average) better off, although there are exceptions. Furthermore, in case you tragically die or are incapacitated* , being married provides important legal protections to your widow and your children. Given all that, would you really choose not to get married?
*Nothing personal; for the sake of the example, I had to pick on either you or your wife, and being the chivalrous gentleman you are I assume you’d prefer me to kill you off, not your hypothetical second wife.
Which number is larger, the number of gay couples who will marry once it is permitted in their home states, or the number of straights who are bothered enough to abandon civil marriage once it is open to all? I think we could be talking about a net increase in the number of marriages (if that’s how we’re measuring harm and benefit to the institution).
There’s a ton of research showing that children in households with married parents are (on average) better off, although there are exceptions….Given all that, would you really choose not to get married?
Amp, do you really think that those studies are measuring the positive effects of a piece of paper? Far more likely they are measuring the positive effects of being parented by the kind of people who get married – i.e., responsible gratification-delaying people fond of structure and civil order. Marry Tommy Lee to Anna Nicole, and the outcome will not likely be a stable family of five with strong values.
If we were going to have children, I would have to look at the legal system at the time and make a determination of what was most appropriate. I’m not sure what legal protections you’re talking about, however. If I die, my wife is still Stephanie’s mother. If she remarries, that might give Stan The Replacement Husband some legal protections – but what does it do for my wife or for Stephanie?
For the long answer to your questions, Robert, I (ironically enough) recommend Maggie’s book on marriage. (Which was co-written, perhaps explaining the vast difference between Maggie’s performance this week and the high quality of that earlier work).
Short answers: I do think that being legal kin, and recognized as such by society, makes a difference to most married couples beyond the mere piece of paper. Some people are 100% self-sufficient, but for most people how they think of themselves and their relationships is effected by how society views. In this way, civil marriage strengthens bonds and helps deepen relationships for many. (You and your hypothetical second wife may be an exception).
The legal protections offered your kids come are mainly economic if you die; unmarried, not a lick of your social security can be inherited by your H.S.W., and any other property she might inherit can be contested by your blood relatives, leaving her with high legal bills and less ability to support the kids. Her custody of your children via your first wife can also be contested, of course. Yes, you can try to get around that through a patchwork of legal contracts, but as many lesbians and gays have discovered, legal contract patchworks hold much less weight in court than a marriage license.
The examples of how a legally recognized kinship can be useful to your spouse should you ever be in a coma, how your non-legal spouse can be forced to testify against you in court and vice versa, health insurance issues, etc., are extremely well-known from the SSM debate, and I won’t rehearse them again here.
Maybe you and your HSW are the exception to all of this. But the claim that civil marriage offers no benefits to most folks (and perhaps you’re not going that far) doesn’t hold water.
Robert Writes: Less value.
So you regard the legal benefits of marriage as privileges that lose value when shared? It’s an interesting viewpoint, and by interesting, I mean completely inexplicable to me.
They don’t need to, but they ought to if they want to be in contact with reality.
I have an irrational belief that you are a communist spy about the detonate a nuclear bomb, and so I am going to kill you. Should you let my irrational feelings sway your actions and thus stay the hell away from me, or call the cops? Only if you’re not a complete idiot.
Yes. But: you have an irrational belief that the benefit to your H.S.W. of being able to inherit widow’s rights in your social security, or to inherit your marital home without it being contested by your other relatives, is somehow of less value because the Hypothetical Gay Couple Next Door also have those rights; as do the Hypothetical Straight Couple Over The Street.
Should the H.G.C.N.D. or the H.S.C.O.T.S let your irrational feelings sway their actions away from getting married? Only if they’re complete idiots. (Indeed, the H.S.W.’s response to your telling her that you value her right to inherit the marital home less because Bob next door can also inherit their marital home when Joe dies, ought to be something along those lines – though we’ll hope for the sake of hypothetical marital harmony that she expresses it more tactfully than “Only if you’re a complete idiot.”)
Jesurgislac, I’m notasking anyone to change their behavior on the basis of my irrational beliefs.
My irrational beliefs exist, however, and are shared by many people – and our behavior will be changed thereby.
You need only take that into account if you wish your own plans and actions to be aligned with the reality taking place around you.
Equal under the law.
What else is there to discuss?
I am not currently equal in America. It it my birthright to be “equal under the law.”
Marriage is a CIVIL construct.
This is about LAW!
If they want to bring all this other bullshit into the discussion then they need to go to church and talk to Jesus. Oh wait, I forgot they all think Dumbya has the direct line to God.
Anyway…all arguments are but so much rhetorical masturbation. I have jerked them all around too. But the bottom line is that in the United States of America, all citizens are to be equal under the law.
An Amendment to Discriminate based on ANY characteristic is in itself Unconstitutional and unworthy of political discourse in our system.
YET…
These morons still find it appropriate to attempt a WEDGE issue to distract us! Even as hundreds of thousands are still homeless from Katrina.
Why does the GOP hate America?
Robert’s explanations may be accurate, but they are not particularly relevant. It is not a legitimate function of government to enforce legal inequality in order to keep anyone comfortable.
Robert: My irrational beliefs exist, however, and are shared by many people – and our behavior will be changed thereby.
Will it? How? You have not said that you would not marry your H.S.W., merely that you would do so with less enthusiasm, because the legal rights you would gain thereby would mean less to you knowing that gay people now share them with you.
You need only take that into account if you wish your own plans and actions to be aligned with the reality taking place around you.
I cannot see how your feeling less enthusiasm about getting married can possibly affect anyone else but you, Robert. (And H.S.W., I suppose.)
We’re supposed to feel bad about SSM because Godly conservatives will take their ball and go home, or something. It’s simply a refinement of the more amorphous idea that SSM is inherently destructive to the institution as the Godly conservatives like to market it. However, instead of marriage simply being destroyed by the wrath of God, or whatever, it will be destroyed because the trauma of sharing it with lesbians and gays will drive Godly conservatives to recoil from the institution in horror and shame.
So you can understand what passes in Godlyconservativeland for “reality,” but it’s not your right to to even inadvertantly reshape it by inadvertantly traumatizing the poor delicate dears. [wags finger]
I don’t know what these people smoke all day long, but I want some. :/
However, instead of marriage simply being destroyed by the wrath of God, or whatever, it will be destroyed because the trauma of sharing it with lesbians and gays will drive Godly conservatives to recoil from the institution in horror and shame.
Yeah, pretty much.
If it’ll help toughen you all up in the face of the inevitable, feel free to report back to the brethren that I got married strictly for the health benefits. The comparitively minor disgust and shame that will result on their part can be helpful. You know, sort of like stretching out the old muscles prior to a five-mile run.
I am a member of one of those couples amp mentioned: the ones who won’t marry because they don’t want to participate in a bigoted institution. So making same sex marriage legal would increase the value I place on it. Not that SSM should be legalized to increase my comfort, of course. It should be legalized because that would be the right, fair, and just thing to do.
Are fewer straights getting married in Canada, Massachusetts, the Netherlands, and other places with SSM? If not, then one could probably posit that Robert’s concern, while potentially unfortunate for him and his partner, is not a major problem for most straights and that it is unlikely that legalizing SSM would cause signficant harm due to the “getting gay cooties on marriage” factor.
So in our analogy, they find or create other social institutions to replace the one where they are no longer comfortable.
And? What follows from this? To my mind, it suggests that these people would have certain types of church weddings in addition to civil marriage — and presumably they already do.
If it turns out that people I consider bigots start avoiding civil marriage, what follows from that? It would likely hurt the bigots in question, but didn’t you just question the benefits of marriage for children? If we accept your doubts, why would I want to encourage the institution? Why would I care if bigots choose to hurt themselves?
Check your logic. You’re asserting that because people’s feelings aren’t rational, they don’t exist.
Robert, check you reading. I am not asserting that in the least. I have no idea how you got that out of my words.
I am asserting that just because someone feels ‘icky’ or uncomfortable about a class of people is no reason whatsoever to deny that class of people a right or priviledge bestowed to the public.
Those ‘icky’ irrational feelings definitely exist, but they should have no bearing on the rights of others.
I am responding to the question – “what will straights do”. Some straights will stop getting married.
You’ve got absolutely no empirical evidence for this assertion. Does anyone know if straight marriages have declined in MA since the legalization of gay marriage? What about Canada?
Furthermore, conservatives got riled about women having equal property rights, the right to refuse sex, the right not to be beaten, divorce rights, and child custody rights in marriage in the same way they’re now getting riled about gay marriage. They made the same arguments about how giving women the right to refuse sex with their husbands would–wait for it–Change The Nature of the Insitution ™ and how marriage just Wouldn’t Be The Same. (And they were right–it’s not the same).
But despite some people’s feeling that marriage didn’t mean the same once women were considered equal partners, the marriage rate didn’t decline in any significant way, did it? People are still getting married even while knowing they can’t smack their wives around. Conservatives who think the husband is the head of the wife continue to get legally married–even while knowing they share the insitution with icky feminists who see marriage as an equal union. There’s no reason it should be any different with gay marriage.
You’ve got absolutely no empirical evidence for this assertion.
And you have no empirical evidence for the converse.
From Gallagher’s October 21 post: “Babies need mothers and fathers. This is the heart of marriage as a universal human idea. … Children have a right to a society that respects their deep, passionate longing for a mother and a father; one that calls on adults to make significant sacrifices to satisfy this longing.”
From Gallagher’s October 20 post: “On adoption: I think adoption is great. I even think single parents adopting is great (if the alternative is no family).”
This is laughable (especially because these two lines are separated by about an inch of computer space). But it looks like Ms. Gallagher thinks only gay people ought to sacrifice their rights and happiness to fulfill children’s “deep, passionate desire for a mother and a father”, doesn’t it?
Amp, you’re being far too kind. Maggie is one of the big “Children need a mother AND a father” proponents. She relies on statistics that conflate same sex households with single parent households in terms of stability. After all, a child growing up with no father in a single parent household is the same as a child growing up with a parent in a same sex female household, because both have no father.
I’ve seen her blog about this again and again. And other bloggers pick up on it, and the lie is spread around, until it comes out that if you’re for same sex marriage, you’re against children having a mother and a father.
All in all, totaly absurd bullshit from a smiling bigot. That’s Maggie. She keeps lying while claiming she really dosen’t actualy think gay people are all that bad.
Just to be contrary about the argument that if gays start doing it, straight folks will avoid it –
You could just as easily argue the opposite. For a lot of young straight folks who aren’t currently rushing to get married, gays are on the cutting edge of style, music, etc. There’s the Queer Eye guys, for example. And in a lot of cities the “gay” neighborhoods are the coolest parts of town. So, maybe if gays start getting married, it will *increase* the coolness factor, and marriage rates among certain straight folks will go up. This could help compensate for the decrease in marriage rates caused by folks like Robert.
Robert is being kinda breathtakingly selfish here, isn’t he? He’s arguing that a certain class of people should be prevented from exercising a right which they value quite a lot – and which their families will benefit from – in order to keep it from being devalued to certain people because of said certain people’s squick factors? (Which, I realize, is a sort of analogy for their religious beliefs.) Yikes.
Are we supposed to view these people’s propensity to marry as being more valuable than others’ ability to do so for some reason? Why?
And this looks a lot like a dodge to avoid the onus of actually asking people to sacrifice for the sake of his squick. “I’d rather” in this case translates to “you must,” and certainly Robert’s compatriots are not shy about asking even if he is.
Personally, I must admit that I don’t much care if a percentage (which I think would be fairly small when it comes down to it) of potential marriers are put off by their irrational squickishness. Don’t let the door etc.
However, I also see no reason not to separate the legal governmental portion of marriage from the religious. I say everyone who gets married should be married civilly in order for it to be legal. Religious marriage should be extra and optional. I think they do this in Italy. Certainly it would also solve the problem of getting an officiant for those of us without religion. And it could create a whole new sector of small capitalism in the civil officiants! “Shell’s Cut-Rate Civil Ceremonies” for example. Then if you want to jump over the bonfire later go ahead.
I have no idea how the selfish squickish ones would feel about this, though. It’s probably not good enough, since I make no provision for not calling same sex marriage anything but marriage. We could differentiate civil-only as unions instead, but some gay people would be getting hitched in their church and call it marriage, so I guess Robert & company still wouldn’t be happy.
Robert Writes: And you have no empirical evidence for the converse.
Robert, you do know that gay marriage is already a fact? Same-sex couples are getting married in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Belgium, and in Spain – not to mention in the state of Massachusetts.
Unless you can point to any sudden drop in mixed-sex marriages in any of these countries when same-sex marriage became law (which you can’t, with any of the countries listed, though with Spain, I suppose it’s too early to say – I don’t think the stats for this year are visible) then you have no empirical evidence for your assertion that hets are less likely to get married if LGB people can get married; and we do have empirical evidence for our assertion that the ability of LGB people to get married will have no effect on hets deciding to get married.
If your feeling is genuinely that the privileges of marriage cease to be so important when same-sex couples can access them too, then there is even more of a timeline to go with, and even more countries: civil partnerships equivalent to marriage have been available in Denmark since 1989, and no one has been able to point to any drop in mixed-sex marriage corresponding to the introduction of same-sex legal access to the privileges of marriage.
You are making assertions without any empirical evidence: the empirical evidence is all against you.
Unlike Stanley Kurtz, I don’t think that what happens in Scandinavia is particularly compelling either way for predictions about the US; the cultures are too different.
As Barry said, we will have empirical evidence in the States in coming years – although since we have a federal system, such evidence might be slow in coming. (Gay-marriage-avoiding heterosexuals in Massachusetts are more likely to just move than to forego marriage.)
Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation, Bean?
I regret not addressing Robert directly in my comment.
Er…Robert, I’m sorry I didn’t address you directly in my comment.
It’s a hard habit to break. Its purpose is to distance oneself from the fray.
And you have no empirical evidence for the converse.
Not true, as Jesurgislac pointed out. And besides I don’t need empirical evidence for the converse. You made a claim that the institution of marriage would decline. The burden of proof is on you, the person who is making a positive claim that a certain trend exists.
As Barry said, we will have empirical evidence in the States in coming years – although since we have a federal system, such evidence might be slow in coming. (Gay-marriage-avoiding heterosexuals in Massachusetts are more likely to just move than to forego marriage.)
…in which case, we could just see if there’s a trend of people moving out of MA because of the gay marriage statute.
And if Scandinavia’s too different, well, what’s to say that U.S. culture can’t evolve to more closely approximate Scandinavian culture in coming years?
Besides, there’s also the example of Canada, which you are ignoring because it does not suit your argument.
Okay, so Robert is an example of someone I can use for my hitherto-hypothetical person who thinks the world should be *legislated* according to his/her squicks, and is willing to admit this. Whoopee!
I also love the little bit of intellectual dishonesty and legerdemain going on by pretending that the term [thinks that squicks aren’t enough to warrant changing or maintaining laws on] is the same as [doesn’t believe that squicks exist] — twofer!
One does have to wonder if Don Juan keeping all his lovers and seductions dates noted down in a day planner would qualify as “sexual organization” or not…
Yes, but apparently you don’t.
I don’t think we can use Scandinavia to predict (in either direction – there’s evidence for both sides of the debate) the future impact of gay marriage on heterosexual behavior here, because the cultural values that the behavior is predicated upon are not the same. However, we can use Scandinavia to observe the past impact of single parenting, because the impact of single parenting are predicated on physical variables like the presence of a father, the resources of two earners, and so on, rather than cultural variables being addressed in the prediction question – i.e., what people think of gays.
If some straights decide to not get married just because I can marry my boyfriend, I say Bon Voyage and Good Riddance. That’s their decision, as irrational as it might seem.
So what?
Okay, so Robert is an example of someone I can use for my hitherto-hypothetical person who thinks the world should be *legislated* according to his/her squicks, and is willing to admit this.
Bellatrys, I’d love to know where you get this. I don’t think that there should be legislation according to my squicks; I say that my own behavior will be effected thereby. In fact, I am in favor of SSM in the civil arena.
Interesting how we don’t hear much fulminating about “single-father families” and “motherlessness”.
Robert: I say that my own behavior will be effected thereby.
Actually, you don’t: you say that your emotions will be affected, but you have made no assertions about your behavior.
Robert says:
I am astonished. Why are people tormenting you then?! I mean, we can argue about what is and is not marriage but surely all those people who ask you about the legal ramifications to families would be silenced if you had mentioned this? Instead of arguing, as I believe you did, that marriage is not after all worth all that much to a family, in and of itself.
But let us explore the “in the civil arena” part. I must admit I am enamored of my own plan of separate and concurrent civil and religious marriages. Would you allow for the general availability of civil marriage, with religious marriage an option? If yes, would you allow for the possibility of some sects performing actual religious marriages for same sex couples, so long as it wasn’t your sect?
Maybe sect isn’t the right word but I can’t come up with it right now. Besides, I like sects.
I am astonished. Why are people tormenting you then?
Because it is intolerable for some people to witness dissent from orthodoxy, would be my guess. But that’s just a guess; ask them. My position is and has always been clear.
Your description of concurrent civil and religious marriage is exactly what I have proposed, here and elsewhere.
My position is and has always been clear.
Your description of concurrent civil and religious marriage is exactly what I have proposed, here and elsewhere.
I dunno, your position hasn’t seemed that clear to me and I’ve been reading Alas nearly daily for lo these many months. And I’m not really stupid either.
So you have no problem with same sex marriage as long as your own sect (again I still disremember the word I’m looking for here) doesn’t allow it? Can we call it marriage or do we need another word? Is it okay with you if other churches perform religous marriages for gay couples?
May I add that I still find your position reprehensibly selfish? What about those people who are unfortunate enough to share your beliefs – but who are also gay? Poor fuckers – they just have to suffer & die. And not, for any reason or by any accidental or other means, reproduce.
(bitter commentary -odectomy…it’s not really all that helpful after all)
I dunno, your position hasn’t seemed that clear to me
Well, I suppose I could spam Alas! with infinitely repeated posts of my own magnum opus on SSM, but I think Barry would eventually get pissed. Still, no harm in posting it one more time.
So you have no problem with same sex marriage as long as your own sect (again I still disremember the word I’m looking for here) doesn’t allow it? Can we call it marriage or do we need another word? Is it okay with you if other churches perform religous marriages for gay couples?
I believe that the civil privileges of marriage ought, by right, to be accessible to all adult citizens. Since we would be dichotomizing marriage into its secular and religious/spiritual components, it would be better to have two different words; “civil unions” and “marriage” would work. What other churches do is not my concern.
May I add that I still find your position reprehensibly selfish?
I don’t care.
What about those people who are unfortunate enough to share your beliefs – but who are also gay? Poor fuckers – they just have to suffer & die.
If they actually share our beliefs and are part of my church, then they are trying to live a celibate life and demanding marriage is not anywhere on their agenda. The Catholic Church has a rich and coherent magisterium on sexual morality; Catholics who disagree with the teachings are entirely free to go elsewhere. There’s a word for Catholics who disagree with the Church and who feel that individual conscience should trump doctrinal authority, and that word is “Protestant”.
My heart goes out to anyone in the position of being gay and also being drawn to the teachings of the Church. It can’t be an easy position to be in. That changes nothing, however; there are a lot of people – me included – who are in difficult spiritual positions because the desires of our flesh conflict with the teachings which we believe to be a true representation of the message of Christ.
But that’s just a guess; ask them. My position is and has always been clear.
Actually, it hasn’t. This is the first time I recall you saying you support same-sex civil marriage.
Because it is intolerable for some people to witness dissent from orthodoxy, would be my guess.
…Robert, that’s absurd. (As absurd as Shell’s question: “Why are people tormenting you then?!”)
When you post your views in public, especially on someone else’s blog where you are aware that many people disagree with you, you do so to have them challenged. If you want silent agreement, you post your views on your own blog where you can assume most people who come by will ne of your way of thinking. If you didn’t enjoy having your orthodox-Catholicism challenged, you wouldn’t comment here.
You weren’t reading that particualar discussion(s), apparently, but he has said it before that I recall.
he has said it before that I recall
Ah. No, I either didn’t read it or didn’t recollect it: apologies for any confusion.
The idea that allowing SSM would somehow dissuade heterosexual couples from marrying seems far fetched. Suppose we have a young couple who have lived together for several years and are thinking about starting a family. They wonder whether or not they should marry first.
The way it is now, they might say, “Well, look at that gay couple down the street. They are successful in living their lives and raising their family without being married, so why should we bother?”
Were the situation different, they might say, “Well, look at that gay couple down the street. Why, they can’t even have a baby together! Yet they thought it important enough for themselves and their children to get married anyway. We should consider doing the same.”
So as it turns out, Robert is a PROPONENT of SSM. Who knew?
I’m kind of at a loss to explain why you’ve been portraying, quite convincingly, a person who objects to SSM in all its guises. If our civil/religious marriage dichotomy came to pass, would your personal devaluing of marriage still occcur? It isn’t clear that this would be sufficiently different from straight-ahead gay marriage to change your attitude in this regard.
Or am I misreading and you would only devalue marriage if your church was performing SSM ceremonies? In which case, of course, there’d be no need for any of the rest of us to take your squick into account; that would be the church’s business.
I’m kind of at a loss to explain why you’ve been portraying, quite convincingly, a person who objects to SSM in all its guises.
Go back to the beginning. Barry noted that Maggie Gallagher failed to address a central question for SSM proponents; how will SSM affect straight people’s decision to marry? All I did was answer the question with what I believe to be the truth: aversion to homosexuality will cause some straights to forego an institution they now view as damaged. Arguably, I’m wrong; arguably, we’ll see. (Barry’s probably right that Maggie doesn’t give this answer because it is a testable answer; she’s arguing tactically, with a political end in mind, and such answers are dangerous to folk with that agenda.) It is a testament to the emotional investiture people have in the issue that this answer blew up into a donnybrook.
If our civil/religious marriage dichotomy came to pass, would your personal devaluing of marriage still occcur?
It would devalue the civil ceremony for me, and make the religious component that much more important.
All I did was answer the question with what I believe to be the truth: aversion to homosexuality will cause some straights to forego an institution they now view as damaged.
Okay. Going back to the beginning. Are you able to explain why in your view some straights feel such aversion to homosexuality that, even though the civil institution of marriage would remain exactly the same, they would rather forego the legal benefits of civil marriage just because gay couples now also have them?
And can you explain why there’s no sign of this happening in Massachusetts?
Are you able to explain why in your view some straights feel such aversion to homosexuality…
I could, but not without using language that would be insensitive and insulting to people who are homosexual. So what would be the point, there? Gays already know why many straights don’t like them. Why rehash it?
And can you explain why there’s no sign of this happening in Massachusetts?
Three factors. One is that its too early to tell; it might take years for such an effect to show up. Two, Massachusetts is a profoundly liberal place – the demographics just don’t include a lot of people with socially conservative views. Three, we have a federalist system, and people would be more likely to just move somewhere else than to forego marriage. My prediction/belief is predicated on a situation where there is no somewhere else – a nationwide condition of alienation from the institution.
One: Why would the effect take more than a year? People generally rent wedding halls a year ahead or less, and it’s been more than a year. It seems to me that the repulsion to the idea is likely greatest initially, rather than after people have had a few years for it to become less shocking. (Polls show that opposition to SSM has gone down in MA in the last two years).
Two: I dunno. Remember, most states are purple, not red or blue; just because social conservatives are a minority doesn’t mean that they’re not a significant portion of the population.
Three: If a significant number of MA residents who would have otherwise gotten married in Massachusetts are now moving out of state instead, that should be visible as a decline in MA’s marriage statistics.
All good points, Barry. On the other hand, there’s also a backlog of suppressed gay marriages to consider – that’s going to alter the statistics as well.
Point well taken. And to tell the truth, I have no idea what the statistics are. It’s a question of such obvious interest, however, that I’m confident that sometime in the next couple of years some demographer will work it out and publish a paper.
Robert: I could, but not without using language that would be insensitive and insulting to people who are homosexual. So what would be the point, there? Gays already know why many straights don’t like them. Why rehash it?
I appreciate your politeness, but that wasn’t quite my question. We’ll take it as read that homophobes feel repulsion towards gay people : the question is, why would that repulsion make them want to give up rights and benefits just because those rights and benefits would also be accessed by gay people?
You don’t want to inherit your marital home tax free (should you survive your wife) because you know that Joe was able to leave his half of their marital home to Bob tax free?
You don’t want to be your wife’s next of kin because you know Joe is Bob’s next of kin?
I found a newspaper report that said about 12 percent of the marriages in MA last year were gays and lesbians, but they didn’t say how many (non-gay-lesbian) marriages there were in the previous year. Lazy bastards.
I found a newspaper report that said about 12 percent of the marriages in MA last year were gays and lesbians, but they didn’t say how many (non-gay-lesbian) marriages there were in the previous year. Lazy bastards.
Presumably these are stats collected somewhere in the state archives?
Raw numbers wouldn’t tell us much with certainty. What’s really needed is data from Mass and from a control state without SSM. And a really good study would measure a bunch of factors and do a multivariate analysis, so effects of SSM could be isolated from other factors.
As I said before, the need is so obvious that I’m confident that some academic, or more likely a bunch of academics, will publish such studies in a few years. And I stand by my prediction that the studies will find no significant change in MA’s hetero marriage rate compared to similar states.
(Contrary what I said before about only needing one year, I have to admit that good methodology may require several years, so that random fluctuation can be eliminated as an explanation for either negative or positive results).
why would that repulsion make them want to give up rights and benefits just because those rights and benefits would also be accessed by gay people?
You answered your own question: because they’re repulsed. It’s an emotional reaction. It doesn’t make logical sense.
So, on what other than bald speculation can we say “Straight people will quit marrying because they will be repulsed that gays can marry each other”? If that were so, we’d have expected Canadians to stream over our border to live in a non-SSM-permitting country, and Massachusetts should be empty of heterosexuals.
Are you able to explain why in your view some straights feel such aversion to homosexualit
They’re jealous. The right wing is always telling them that gays are getting hot anonymous sex 24/7, and porn tells us that lesbians are all beautiful and get it on at the drop of a hat. That’s bound to create some resentment, don’t you think?
You answered your own question: because they’re repulsed. It’s an emotional reaction. It doesn’t make logical sense.
It doesn’t even make emotional sense. It’s not like a racist person not wanting to share a lunch counter or a bus seat or see their child going to school with black people, though obviously it comes from the same root – the emotional repulsion you describe. It’s as if racists no longer wanted their child to be educated, or no longer wanted to drive, or no longer wanted to eat lunch, or no longer wanted to vote, knowing that black people now had equal access to education, transport, lunch, and voting. (In theory, at least.)
For those without the time or the patience to read Robert’s multipart explanation of his views on homosexuality, civil rights and the SSM question, I quote below his own summary from the end of the piece:
Robert, contra the controlling current understanding of the Establishment Clause, wishes to rename so much of marriage as most of us are discussing, and to institute above it a more exalted state of “sacramental marriage,” solemnized by some religious body, but also recognized by the State.
Do I misdescribe your position, Robert?
I believe what Robert means is that people who want civil benefits go to the State for the secular ceremony, and those who want a religious ceremony do that, but the ceremony has no civil effect. Robert’s a good Libertarian.
Thing is, that’s more or less what we have now. The state allows overlap in that religious officials can be certified to do the civil solemnization as well.
True enough. But the Separate Ceremonies Act of 2006 Making Same Sex Marriage Acceptable to Robert* would legally identify MARRIAGES (that is, those with the additional religious ceremony) between persons of the same sex.
And incidently the many, many people who won’t bother with the religious ceremony are not likely to call their conjoinednesses “unions” and their beloveds “partners” regardless of the law; they will consider themselves married to a spouse.
*all references are to a spurious nonexistent “act.”
Myth, I couldn’t tell for sure what Robert’s position on additional benefits or “sacramental marriage” were. But if the “sacramental marriage” would carry no different legal status, and no church will be forced in any event to solmnize anything against their doctrines, then why incur the transaction costs to change the entire system as it now exists to “civil unions,” and recreate a different edifice under the term “marriage?” All so that, in addition to believing that their heterosexual marriages were superior to same sex ones, people who think homosexual acts are sinful could have legally recognized exclusive use of the word? With no additional legal rights?
I always thought libertarians looked for ways to remove unnecessary transaction costs.
Robert, is it really your position that your proposed “sacramental marriage” would have no additional legal rights beyond those of a civil union, except that it would be called a “marriage” and that one would need a church seal of approval to get the state to recognize it?
It doesn’t even make emotional sense. It’s not like a racist person not wanting to share a lunch counter or a bus seat or see their child going to school with black people, though obviously it comes from the same root – the emotional repulsion you describe. It’s as if racists no longer wanted their child to be educated…
Not exactly.
When schools were desegregated in the south, the racists still wanted their kids to be educated. So they created alternative institutions.
That’s what I suspect will happen with SSM.
why incur the transaction costs to change the entire system as it now exists to “civil unions,” and recreate a different edifice under the term “marriage?” All so that, in addition to believing that their heterosexual marriages were superior to same sex ones, people who think homosexual acts are sinful could have legally recognized exclusive use of the word? With no additional legal rights?
Yup.
Robert, is it really your position that your proposed “sacramental marriage” would have no additional legal rights beyond those of a civil union, except that it would be called a “marriage” and that one would need a church seal of approval to get the state to recognize it?
The state wouldn’t recognize it. It would be a sacramental marriage – transparent, and irrelevant, to the temporal power. If you wanted the state-granted civil rights, you would have to get a civil union as well.
The state wouldn’t recognize it. It would be a sacramental marriage – transparent, and irrelevant, to the temporal power. If you wanted the state-granted civil rights, you would have to get a civil union as well.
Don’t we have that now?
No. The state currently recognizes religious marriage; you have to fill in the state’s paperwork, but any cleric (in most states, pretty much anybody who says they’re a cleric) has the authority to solemnize the marriage in civil terms. When my wife and I got married, the deacon who solemnized our not-quite-Catholic-kosher wedding signed the form.
I would remove that church-state cooperation and completely separate the two sets of formalities.
However, the state only recognizes some religiously solemnized marriages. In most of the US, it does not, for instance, recognize religiously solemnized same sex marriages. Also, unless you go through a great deal of effort, Oregon will not automatically recognize a marriage religiously solemnized under the auspices of the Great Church of Simon the Aardvark.
Anyone who wishes to completely separate the two institustions for themselves is entirely free to do so. You can have a church wedding in which your priest solemnizes your church marriage, and then go down to the court house and have a justice of the peace solemnize your civil marriage. Any church which wishes to completely separate the two for all of its members merely needs to deregister with the state, thereby becoming the equivalent of the Great Church of Simon the Aardvark. However, both of these courses of action seem like they would merely create inconvenience, wihtout any great gain.
I really don’t understand what great benefit would be created by actually requiring these two actions to be separated.
I really don’t understand what great benefit would be created by actually requiring these two actions to be separated.
Enough conservatives of a libertarian bent would see the justice of it that you could get civil unions for gays. Right now the holdup is that people think – whether rightly or wrongly, so please do not everyone barrage this already tired thread with idiot declarations about how they’re wrong to think it – that SSM advocates want to redefine marriage.
If it isn’t the spiritual component of marriage that SSM advocates want to redefine, then 90% of the opposition from all but the very deeply fundamentalist disappears. So move the spiritual part into the private sector, mark it “out of bounds”, and claim the civil right (key word: civil) that SSM advocates say they’re after.
I’m not sure that doing as you suggest would reduce the opposition; on the contrary, it might set some currently fence-sitting clergy against SSM. I hate to sound like a cynic, but people tend to have an eye on their own self-interest, and for many churches and clergy solomizing marriages is a significant source of income.
The fact that churches and clergy are currently a replacement for, rather than an addition to, civil solomization means that couples have no economic motive to cut churches and clergy out of their weddings. Your proposal would change that.
Robert, I don’t think it’s ‘spiritual’ so much as a combination of the “ew factor” (whoa, those gay married men will be having the butt sex!) and the cake-topper hysteria (if there’s not one man and one woman, how the hell is anyone going to know whose job it is to make Thanksgiving dinner?). Of course there are also people with religious objections.
I would remove that church-state cooperation and completely separate the two sets of formalities
Wouldn’t work. You’d have to ban anyone who could solemnize a civil marriage from performing religious marriages. That is, if a state says “anyone who is a notary public can solemnize a marriage,” you’d have to say “….unless they’re a priest, rabbi, houngan….” and then you’d run smack into a First Amendment problem.
Essentially, what religious officials get is to combine the state’s requirements with an overlay of their religious rituals, the state not actually giving a rip about the rituals beyond making sure the person solemnizing the marriage is legally permitted to do so, and expecting the paperwork to be signed.
Also, formally splitting the civil portion from the religious portion seems like a more extreme redefinition of marriage than merely allowing SSM. It would be declaring that religious marriage has no bearing on civil marital status.
Civil marital status already has no bearing on religious marital status, as you well know, Robert, since you and your wife are currently civilly married, but forbidden from marrying within your faith. Likewise, when you do marry within your faith, it will still not make you religiously married within the eyes of the Church of Later Day Saints. That the state of Massachusetts recognizes Methodist or Reform Jewish marriages of people of the same sex simply has no bearing on the Catholic or Mormon marriage.
When schools were desegregated in the south, the racists still wanted their kids to be educated. So they created alternative institutions.
But what you’re suggesting the homophobes will do is the equivalent of tge racists not allowing their children to be educated: as if the racists had said “Hey, if black kids are getting an education, that means education is worthless! My kids aren’t going to have an education if they have to share being educated with black kids!”
As I understand it, in Italy the legally recognized marriage is the civil union, and couples go to the courthouse to fill out the forms and go through a simple ceremony. Those who want a church wedding can then go and have a church wedding, but the paperwork after the religious ceremony is for church, not state purposes.
In order to have separation of church and state for secular marriages in the U.S., I believe the states would have to change their laws to specify that only (say) a justice of the peace or a Marriage Official (new job position for somebody!) could oversee the civil wedding ceremony. I don’t see how this would be a loss of revenue for churches and synagogues, because there are plenty of other people than a priest, minister, or rabbi right now who can perform the ceremony, and you don’t have to have a religious ceremony if you don’t want to. (My husband and I were married by a ship captain who also happened to be an ordained minister, but it would have been legal even if he hadn’t had the religious official card.)
Right now, this very moment, there is nothing stopping you (that’s the generic “you”) from getting married in your (catholic, jewish, mormon, voudon or satanic) church & not filling out or filing the paperwork that allows your marriage to be legally recognized. It is nonsense to say otherwise – the clergy member who performed the religious ceremony does not march the newlyweds to town hall & force them to turn in the paperwork.
… but any cleric (in most states, pretty much anybody who says they’re a cleric) has the authority to solemnize the marriage in civil terms.
IRL, it isn’t quite that easy. In Nevada, surprisingly enough, it is actually very difficult to get authorization to solemnize marriages if you are not part of a well-established church. In Massachusetts, OTHOH, (oh, horrible, wicked, evil, liberal state that it is), ANYBODY can be authorized to solemnize a marriage as long as the soon to be happily married couple signs a form saying that they want random person X to solemnize their marriage. Although, in NY (oh, horrible, wicked, evil liberal NY) it is almost impossible to be authorized to solemnize marriages if you are not part of a well established church.
So, there’s that, then. We do, in fact, have seperation between religious & civil marriage. It’s just that most people getting a religious marriage also wish to have the benefits of civil marriage & the market has developed accordingly (folks performing religious marriage having authorization to solemnize civilly recognized marriage).
Robert, what you propose is only a delaying tactic. As you say, if same-sex couples were willing to settle for all the legal benefits and not the word, most opposition vanishes.
But then why is the word so important? Because many straight folks (not all religious, but mostly) want to be able to say, “but our union is a special union and you dirty faggots can’t have it!”
Now, if all those folks live in a compound in Idaho, nobody cares what they think. But, even if the legal rights are equal, if there is greater social respectability accorded to marriage than to another kind of union with the same legal rights, then most gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folks are going to want that as an option for their own relationships.
And we’ll push, and we’ll keep pushing. And the thin end of the wedge is already in. It’s just a question of time and pressure.
Interesting, isn’t it, how people who think a word or a ‘piece of paper’ is so vitally important try to talk you out of wanting it by saying it’s not important?
Jake, many religious officials will not solemnize a marriage that the State isn’t going to recognize.
if there is greater social respectability accorded to marriage than to another kind of union with the same legal rights, then most gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folks are going to want that as an option for their own relationships.
Undoubtedly. Not going to happen. Sorry.
Jake, many religious officials will not solemnize a marriage that the State isn’t going to recognize.
Absolutely true, but that isn’t what I was writing about.
If I head down to Big Bob’s Church of Temporary Life & Eternal Damnation with my beloved for our wedding & Big Bob (hisself, even!) performs the ceremony (which he does because ours is a proper heterosexual marriage between persons of the same faith that the state would recognize if we filed the papers), we don’t need to file the paperwork with the state (or even have the paperwork filled out).
So you can have your religious ceremony & not become married in the eyes of the state. However, even without the civil marriage recognition, you will run into problems with common-law recognition of your marriage if it both looks enough like the popular version of marriage & lasts long enough. Hmmm, I guess we’ll need to do away with common-law marriage for Robert’s dream to be true.
Undoubtedly. Not going to happen. Sorry.
Ha! In your face Thomas! Did you see that? “Not going to happen.” See how Robert made Massachusetts cease to exist (not to mention Canada, etc)?
IN YOUR FACE!
Well but under this scheme same sex couples WOULD get to be actually sacramentally married in an actual church, assuming they had chosen a church that performs those ceremonies for SS couples.
That makes it between *Robert and his church*, and *the SS couples and their churches*, whether they can marry a same sex partner, or ensure that their church doesn’t provide such ceremonies – which is where this particular rift SHOULD be, not in the civil legal part.
And anyway, no-one is going to use the “civil union” phrase except for where they specifically have to – in the paperwork, in any divorce etc. proceedings, and when specifically asked whether they were sacrementally married or not. The language usage will not change if there is no actual legal difference.
I believe Robert wants all SS couples (and only SS couples) to still have to call their conjoinedness civil unions EVEN IF they have a sacramental marriage, but that’s not how we set it up in the Act*.
*spurious – see post above if you care.
Robert Writes in response to: if there is greater social respectability accorded to marriage than to another kind of union with the same legal rights, then most gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender folks are going to want that as an option for their own relationships.
“Undoubtedly. Not going to happen. Sorry. ”
Robert, will you please stay in contact with reality? You may wish it’s “Not going to happen”, but it already has happened.
The lawyers out there can (and will) correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there are only three states that recognize common-law marriage.
I seem to remember that Patricia Kenneally-Morrison (of rock journalism) is embroiled in litigation with the trustees of Jim Morrison’s estate because their religious marriage ceremony was not recognized as a legal one.
That makes it between *Robert and his church*, and *the SS couples and their churches*, whether they can marry a same sex partner, or ensure that their church doesn’t provide such ceremonies – which is where this particular rift SHOULD be, not in the civil legal part.
Exactly. And, sometimes, that is what Robert has said that he wants. Robert, if I understand him correctly, would only be part of a church that recognizes only marriages that he finds moral or permissible or not icky. But he really, really, really wants to keep the word “marriage” only for those marriages of which he (and his sect) approve. I think that that is where the murkiness of his arguments come from.