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.
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.
A quick search on Google returns this:
http://www.unmarried.org/common.html
So there are currently 15 states and one district that recognize common-law marriages (to some extent, anyway). But, as they warn, if you live in one of the states that does recognize common-law marriage & then move back to a state that doesn’t, you will likely still be considered to be married.
Robert, will you please stay in contact with reality? You may wish it’s “Not going to happen”, but it already has happened.
You’re conflating the legal requirement (the state recognizes your marriage) with the social acceptance (everyone accepts your marriage as being a marriage).
They aren’t the same thing.
I do not believe that any gay couple’s state-recognized union is the same thing as my union. I’m not going to believe it. State and court action won’t change that.
Actually, Robert doesn’t favor civil unions for SSM and marriages for OSM.
Go back and read what he actually wrote describing his position. He favors civil marriage for SSM and OSM, and religious marriage for those that the particular religion considers appropriate. That is, with the exception that he thinks religious officials should be forbidden from being the person to sign the civil marriage certificate, he thinks that the entire US should be like Canada or Massachusetts.
He just also thinks that SSM isn’t the same as his (religiously forbidden) marriage and that he will think less of his civil marriage when SSM is legalized.
While Catholic religious SSM will only be performed by rebel priests, and not recognized by the church as a whole, there are plenty of religions that do perform religious SSM currently, so the idea that ‘true’ marriage would be the religious one, and that one would be denied to SS couples, is simply incorrect. Religious SSM is available already nation-wide, it is only civil SSM (which Robert supports) that is denied.
Robert opposes Catholic religious SSM, and that is an issue I personally feel is only really disputable amongst Catholics.
Robert, by the way, given that you spend a lot of time expressing opposition to and denigrating SSM, it might make discussion easier if you routinely caviated your opposition to and denigration of SSM by mentioning that you support legalized SSM. I think most people mistakenly expect that someone who opposes SSM will also oppose legalized SSM, so your views are often assumed to be other than they are.
It’s more fun this way, and it provides me with a free way to find out who has intellectual integrity.
Oh, I dunno. This is supposedly Roberts end soundbite:
…civil unions for gays and secular straights, sacramental marriages for the religious.
(per Thomas, as I, most unfortunately, have not the patience)
It sounds to me as if Robert wants gays to be relegated to civil unions along with us secular folks. He doesn’t mention religious gays here, nor has he specifically either acceded to or disavowed religious sacramental marriage for religious gays (in re: the civil/religous marriage split, in these comments), but that is how I would intuitively read the above statement – that gay people cannot be married but only unionized.
I’ve been waiting & hoping for a straightforward answer without having to ask the question, but I guess I’ll have to ask: Robert, do you expect under your civil union/religious marriage split that same sex couples will be actually married? Because under mine they would, and I’m just wondering if we still agree.
Define “actually married”.
Robert: You’re conflating the legal requirement (the state recognizes your marriage) with the social acceptance (everyone accepts your marriage as being a marriage).
Ah: I see. You mis-read Thomas’s original comment.
Thomas said: “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.”
Assuming that the US decides to go for both “civil union” and “marriage”, as the Netherlands has, then plainly (as Thomas says) most LGBT people are going to want marriage as an option for their own relationships.
You evidently mis-read Thomas’s comment as LGBT people wanting “greater social respectability”, and, furthermore, you appear to assume that your prejudice, and yours alone, dictates whether LGBT people ever get “greater social respectability”.
Either that, or you’re just being deliberately obscure and obtuse to troll the thread.
I interpreted Thomas’ comment correctly. He stated that LGBT would want the option (“marriage”) that currently carries the greatest social respect for their own unions. My response is that they may be able to have the option; they won’t get the respect. If I phrased that poorly, my apologies.
I do not assume that everyone believes the same way that I believe, Jesurgislac, but I am aware that there are many people who do.
I think Thomas mis-summarized. Robert, as I understand him, believes that civil marriage should be OSM and SSM. Thomas summarizes this as civil unions, but I don’t think that that was Robert’s term.
Also, religious marriage would be available to the religious, with the restrictions appropriate to the particular religion. Since plenty of religions solemnize religious SSM right now, religious marriage would not be restricted to OS couples only.
Robert definitely doesn’t think that religious marriage should be granted greater state bennies than civil marriage (in fact, he believes that religious marriage should have no legal recognition), so what he is proposing is not a civil union vs. civil/religious marriage set-up, where C/RM gets better bennies and is straight-only, which is what I think Thomas’s summary using the term civil union was interpreted as. Actually, I think he takes the whacko libertarian position that the state should provide any marriage bennies, but I’m not clear on that.
Somehow, I think the “guess what Robert’s views on SSM are” game takes up more space than Robert giving a quick summary of his views would, but maybe that is just me.
Robert, on the “actually married” question, am I correct in believing that under your system, SS civil marriages would have all the same legal rights and responsabilities as OS civil marriages, but that you (and others like you) would personally not view these marriages as being real in some higher sense? Just as the Catholic Church and its adherents do not view either my marriage or (currently) yours as real in some higher sense?
Robert: My response is that they may be able to have the option; they won’t get the respect. If I phrased that poorly, my apologies.
Ah, that makes more sense. (Though it was, yes, exceedingly poorly phrased as that’s what you meant.)
They won’t get the respect from you. That does not equate to “they won’t get the respect” period.
I do not assume that everyone believes the same way that I believe, Jesurgislac
Then why speak as if you did? If you mean that same-sex married couples will not get the respect from you that mixed-sex married couples get, why speak as if you were talking from above, for all?
Robert, on the “actually married” question, am I correct in believing that under your system, SS civil marriages would have all the same legal rights and responsabilities as OS civil marriages, but that you (and others like you) would personally not view these marriages as being real in some higher sense?
Correct.
Just as the Catholic Church and its adherents do not view either my marriage or (currently) yours as real in some higher sense?
Mmm, they/we view it as real, just not sanctified within the church. (Mine, that is. Yours, I don’t know the details of.) But definitely “lesser”, yes.
Mebbeso we should take this to another venue. I’m a little frustrated here; I don’t like this chasing around thing.
Robert: Define “actually married”.
Shell: Married in a church and using the term “marriage” in legal documents as opposed to “civil union.” As per the discussed “Act.”* As per your proposal** to make sacramental marriage transparent to government.
*spurious
**as quoted by Thomas (and requoted by me) above.
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.
So conservative religious institutions will create seg-marriages just like the southern “seg-academies”?
Fine with me. It’ll still be recognized by the state as a civil marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities of an OS or SS civil marriage.
The comparison with segregation is quite apt – just as blacks were entitled to make use of public schools, transportation, and public accomodation under the Fourteenth Amendment, so are same-sex couples able to benefit from civil marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What you have in both instances is a civil right versus a personal squick, and there’s no rational basis for the squick, let alone the compelling state interest necessary to abrogate people’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment .
OK, married according to the state. Yes, they’d be married/unionized/whatever according to the state.
You’re equivocating, Robert.
Robert: OK, married according to the state. Yes, they’d be married/unionized/whatever according to the state.
No no no no no. They (religious same sex couples) are transparent to the state EXCEPT in what the state is required to CALL THEIR CONJOINEDNESS in legal papers etc. Is it the same as **religious** opposite sex couples or not?
Robert, I must say that I am still not sure what you’re saying. Maybe I just didn’t recognize yes yes yes…or no no no for that matter. PLEASE be explicit because I am so stupid.
I guess I’m not understanding your question.
I do not believe that a union between a same-sex couple is sacramentally valid, under any circumstances. However, I am not the arbiter of all sacramentality (or if I am, it isn’t showing up in my pay stub), and in addition to that, what other churches do is not in my purview. If the Unitarians marry Amp and Charles, do I consider that valid? No. Do I get a vote? No.
A civil union or marriage or whatever label is attached to it that is regulated and formalized by the state is valid, to the extent that it follows the state’s own rules and procedures and such. If Oregon marries Amp and Charles, do I consider that valid? Sure. Do I get a vote? Yes, or at least, I would if I were an Oregonian.
Not sure where the confusion is coming from. I’m not trying to be obscure.
If when civil & religious marriage is separated we will call all conjoinednesses, whether religious or not, SS or OS, marriage, fine. But then I don’t understand what the difference would be – TO YOU, especially – whether the civil & religious were more completely severed or not. Your church will not be forced to perform SS marriages, so why *only* support SSM if the civil & religious functions were separated? Why not just go ahead & ask the government to allow SSM and to perform these marriages civilly when asked, and let the churches decide whether or not to perform these ceremonies – as they already do?
I mean, I thought we were throwing a half a sop to the squickish ones by separating the two sorts – civil and religious marriage – and calling them different things. If they’re not different in any way including in name, why separate them?
What I meant to say, and what I think I did say, was that Robert’s position is just a big shell game to protect the exclusive use of the word “marriage” for straight people. And I said that as long as that word conveys any kind of greater status, whether legal or merely social, same sex couples will fight for it.
I read Robert as suggesting that this will never happen. Robert is on the train tracks. The train is coming through.
My response is that they may be able to have the option; they won’t get the respect.
As was said earlier, they will get more respect as married couples than as “unionized” couples or “partners”. The fact that you, and many people, may not consider their marriages to be as spiritually valid as yours is really irrelevant; millions of Jews do not consider marriages between Jews and Gentiles to be valid, yet the government lets Jews go right on intermarrying. Millions of people likely did not consider interracial marriages to be as valid as their own, same-race marriages after Loving, for that matter.
And really, who cares? As long as you’re not illegally discriminating (say, by your business only granting spousal benefits to legally wed couples who are male/female), whether you think your own marriage is sacramentally superior is kind of irrelevant.
whether you think your own marriage is sacramentally superior is kind of irrelevant
Yes and no. But I’m not the one haranguing me to get the exact details of my emotional state. ;P
Robert, I’m so glad you think so little of alsis’s and my marriage.
Undoubtedly, the Catholic Church doesn’t consider us married, as we were married in the heathen confines of the Clark County (Nevada) Marriage Bureau. No church or cathedral consecrated by a bishop; rather, a county office building.
But the States of Nevada and Oregon still recognize our union, as does the IRS, Social Security Administration, and all other government entitied, foreign or domestic.
And those are the rights same-sex couples are entitled to. Religious entities can refuse to perform or bless same-sex marriages, just as an Orthodox rabbi could have refused to marry alsis to a goyim, or a Catholic priest refused to marry a pro-choice man who hasn’t been to Mass in over 20 years to a Jewish woman.