[Crossposted at Family Scholars Blog]
In comments at Family Scholars Blog, responding to Christopher, Elizabeth wrote a very concise summary of the heart of her own (anti-Same Sex Marriage) stance, and also the heart of Christopher’s (pro-SSM) stance.
there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who wish to have equal rights to marry someone of the same sex, and there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who believe redefining marriage will weaken even more the social and legal idea that kids, the vast majority of whom are born to heterosexuals, need whenever possible to know and be known by their mothers and fathers, which is most likely to happen with their mother and father are married to each other.
Here’s a curious thing I’ve realized about the gay marriage debate: There’s a big split between the intellectuals and non-intellectuals on the anti-equality side of the debate, but not so much on the pro-equality side.
Both Elizabeth and Christopher are, obviously, far more well-read and articulate when discussing marriage equality than most Americans are. (Practice does that for ya.)
But the core of Christopher’s argument — “equal rights” — is the core of the arguments you can commonly hear from practically anyone who supports same-sex marriage. It’s easy to explain, and it’s an argument that has a lot of salience among Americans (particularly younger Americans).
But as far as I can tell — both from personal encounters and from polls — the same can’t be said about the argument against equality. Most ordinary people who oppose same-sex marriage say they’re against it because of their religion, or because they just don’t think being gay is moral.
Intellectuals who articulate a secular case against marriage equality, such as Elizabeth and David, are making an argument that has very little to do with why ordinary people oppose it.
(Let me emphasize that this is merely an observation. The rightness or wrongness of the secular anti-equality arguments are not determined by how popular they are; an argument can be entirely correct and nonetheless be unpopular.)
Does this matter? Well, I think it has a great deal to do with why the pro-equality side is winning this argument. The core argument against marriage equality isn’t the secular argument skillfully articulated by David and Elizabeth; it’s that God doesn’t want gay people getting married. That’s an argument that has less and less salience with each new generation of Americans.
Good observation, and I think it’s an important one to note.
Maggie Gallagher’s activities with the so-called “Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance” are premised on the assumption that equality advocates call “marriage defenders” bigots for no good reason. And, in part, it seems like she and some of the “marriage defense” intellectuals base this “marriage defense” persecution complex on the misperception (or deliberate misrepresentation) that most ordinary people oppose same-sex marriage for the relatively-benign (compared to the “god hates gay people” etc. arguments) reason that Elizabeth articulates.
It just seems like a really out of touch argument, because the way many of the intellectuals talk about marriage just isn’t really the way average, non-professional “marriage defenders” talk about it. Even a brief perusal of the comments at NOM’s own blog demonstrates the ugly bigotry that forms the basis of many people’s opposition to same-sex marriage.
It’s intellectual in the sense that it’s a secular arrangement of arguments, but it’s also not compelling because it makes no logical sense. “God doesn’t want gays to marry” makes perfect logical sense if you accept certain religious premises. “But it will weaken marriage even more!” actually makes no logical sense whatsoever.
I’m with mythago that the logic of the “intellectual” position seems way less coherent than the good old hatred of gays (which is probably why it is so hard to believe that hatred and prejudice are not what are *really* underlying the “intellectual” opposition too.)
Notice, for example, the quoted section above tries to hang the anti-SSM argument on what’s best for kids. But not *all* kids. No, no. Apparently kids of GLBQ people get no consideration at all!
How can it be on the one hand that marriage is so very important that when kids of heteros are raised outside of it they will have horrible outcomes, but on the other hand there is no need to consider (given their own assumptions about how very important marriage is to good outcomes for children), that children of glbq people also deserve the benefits of having married parents?
Am I to take the comment about the “vast majority” of kids being raised by hetero parents to mean that the “intellectuals” are just using the most unsophisticated consequentialist reasoning possible? I.e. that for every one kid being raised by glbq people there are 9 being raised by hetero people. So even though not allowing the glbq kid’s parents to marry will lead to horrid, horrid outcomes for him/her, that’s better than allowing the glbq kid’s parents to marry which would lead to horrid, horrid outcomes for the other 9 kids. (Of course, these assumptions have no relation at all to empirical reality, but that is apparently beside the point!) Is this, essentially, what they are reasoning? Screw the kids who happen to have glbq parents–they’re going to end up totally fucked up anyway?
“Here’s a curious thing I’ve realized about the gay marriage debate: There’s a big split between the intellectuals and non-intellectuals on the anti-equality side of the debate, but not so much on the pro-equality side.”
I think the pro-SSM case is very split too. Doesn’t come up much in public, but the equality equality case is a strange one. Modern western marriage always was always gendered, and still is in lots of ways. There’s certainly a tension between the non-intellectuals argument (which doesn’t see this) and says that gay people should have “equal rights” to those men and women currently have – and this won’t effect marriage as an insitution at all. And the intellectuals argument which sees marriage as an oppressive outmoded Patriarchal institution and want to allow SSM to either reform it or wreck it (depending on how moderate or extreme they are). Surprised you don’t see that.
Can you give some realistic examples of pro-ssm advocates who have argued, publicly, that we should legalize ssm so that we can wreck the institution of marriage? I think that this is a straw man.
It’s not enough to cite someone who believes that marriage is patriarchal/outmoded/should be wrecked who also happens to support legalizing ssm. You need to provide a credible example of someone who argues that wrecking marriage is the reason to legalize ssm.
Mythago:
I think it does.
Secular definition of marriage: Loving union between a man and a woman sanctioned by the state for the purpose of creating new taxpayers (in exchange for certain benefits conferred by the state).
SSM responses: 1) why can’t people of the same sex who love each other get married? 2) how come infertile people and elderly people can get married when they are unable to create new taxpayers for the state?
Revised secular definition of marriage: Loving union between two people sanctioned by the state (in exchange for certain benefits conferred by the state).
(Okay, there is a disconnect there already because the state no longer receives a benefit; it is only conferring them. But, we will try to proceed.)
Jut’s petulant response: Why do they have to love each other? If I am single, and the other person is single, why can’t we do it just for the benefits. I mean, it’s not like I’m gay or anything, but women just aren’t digging my kind of cool, so, why can’t I just marry my loser roommate; I could use the tax break until the right person comes along. Do I really have to love the person I marry? And, do I really have to be gay to marry someone of the same sex? I know this gay guy who used to be married to this lesbian. (True story; they had two kids.) It’s okay, I am confident enough in my masculinity to marry a dude.
Further revised secular definition of marriage: Union between two people sanctioned by the state (in exchange for certain benefits conferred by the state).
This kind of looks like a run of the mill contract. It is a specific type of contract with a specific set of benefits. Landlord-Tenant law is like that. If two people enter into that sort of “Union,” the state confers a specific set of rights (or protections) on the Landlord and on the Tenant that other relationships don’t have. Trusts also get certain benefits from the state if that relationship is created. Same thing is true if you set up a corporation. If you jump through the right hoops, you get the benefit the law provides.
I suppose you could further dilute it by getting rid of the two people requirement, but I think this is watered down enough.
This is a potential unintended consequence of the SSM movement. There is a gaping hole created that allows a lot of arrangements that may not be intended. And, maybe the SSM movement would simply say, “that’s fine if any two people want to get married, and, if they do, more power to them.” But , if you are looking at “family” as the building block of a society, you might want to give it more prominence than other sorts of contracts (or, as many suggest, take it out of the public sector altogether).
I guess I would ask:
Is marriage a special type of relationship?
Why or how is it special?
How would you define it any differently than any other sort of contractual relationship?
Will that definition reinforce the “special” relationship of marriage (assuming there is one)?
-Jut
I’m sure the intellectual faction of the anti-ssm argument sincerely believes that they are building a coherent argument against ssm. But I’m not sure I accept that their original reason for their opposition is much different than their non-intellectual cohorts. Maggie Gallagher, for example, seems to me to be someone (when you look at her early arguments) who decided her anti-ssm position and then evolved arguments that moved her farther away from her original religious objections. Perhaps there is an attempt to find some foundation upon which to secure one’s position that doesn’t require bigotry. I’m not sure the sophistry (or at least what strikes me as sophistry) of an intellectual anti-ssm argument actually accomplishes that.
James–there is indeed a group of intellectuals making arguments for getting rid of marriage altogether, but in my experience they are extremely critical of the mainstream pro-SSM movement. (See, e.g.) There are those who want to see SSM reform marriage by making it more gender egalitarian, but that’s not why they support it. If we could somehow show that SSM will have no affect on hetero marriage or sexism, I don’t think a single feminist would revoke her support. It’s seen as an added social good, not a reason in itself.
Jutgory, that is not a “revised” definition of marriage. With the exception of the current gender restrictions (in some states), that is the status quo, and it has been for all of modern times.
“Creating new taxpayers” is neither a right nor an obligation that marriage confers; it has nothing to do with the contract that married couples enter into with the state. The state confers benefits onto married couples, and those couples are under ZERO legal obligation to do anything in return.
Additionally, current law does not require couples to love each other, as long as they meet the arbitrary gender restrictions that the state imposes. You know a gay guy who married a lesbian? Guess what–I know a straight guy who doesn’t love his wife.
Eliminating the gender restrictions in state law with regard to marriage does not change the status quo, except with regard to gender restrictions.
Statistics.
If you think that gay marriages are only 5% (1 out of 20) of all potential marriages,
and if you think that each gay marriage has more than a 1 in 19 chance of magically breaking up a hetero marriage through some sort of evil gay antimarriage laser death ray,
then you may have statistical justification to ban gay marriages so long as your goal is only to increase the total # of marriages overall.
That’s why this is important:
“kids, the vast majority of whom are born to heterosexuals…”
Note also that from a mathematical perspective, the smaller the claimed # of gay marriages, the less of an effect each marriage has to be to make the numbers work. If you think that only 1 of 100 marriages will be gay marriages, then you could decide to ban them if they had greater than a 1/99 change of stopping a hetero marriage. If you think 1 of 1000 marriages will be gay, it’s relevant if they only have a 1/999 chance. And so on.
Of course, the argument is “valid” because assumes the existence of some sort of evil gay antimarriage laser death ray, which is sort of like the economist who, when asked how to open a can, started out “first assume a can opener…”
it also assumes that the only goal is “increase the # of overall marriages.”
Phil:
No, there is no legal obligation. However, prior to developments in birth control (the pill), offspring were an expected outcome of marriage, divorce was stigmatized, single parenthood was stigmatized, “illegitmacy” was an enforced legal concept that created a legal barrier to certain rights and people who were too closely related were not (and still are not) allowed to marry. On that last one, are you seriously contending that a restriction on incestuous marriages has NO connection to the creation of offspring? Things may have changed A LOT in the last century that have resulted in a devaluation of marriage, but much of the regulation of marriage had to do with the regulation of procreation (just as it had a lot to do with property distribution).
Phil:
I know it doesn’t. However, one of the Pro-SSM arguments that you will see at rallies or demonstrations is that their “love” should be recognized. Or their “love” is no different than heterosexual love. You and I seem to agree with Ms. Turner, “What’s love got to do with it?” However, as that is a frequent argument that pops up, I figured I would include it.
-Jut
What is the “core meaning of marriage”?
Lloyd Zimmerman describes in the New York Times one of the duties that falls to a judge: conducting emergency weddings by phone when one party is on his deathbed. Whatever the core meaning of marriage was to these people, sex had nothing to do with it; there would be no consummation. Yet after decades in the law, this drama resulted in the finest order Zimmerman ever issued.
On Nov. 25 Zimmerman published a follow-up reflection on marriage and family. They’re both worth a read.
Dammit, nobody.really. Couldn’t you warn us that those links are emotionally NSFW?!?! :P
Zimmerman is awesome.
Jut Glory said:
Well, that’s the problem though. Love has everything to do with it and nothing to do with it at the same time.
Outlawing SSM doesn’t stop people who don’t love each other from getting married; it just stops people who do love each other from getting married.
I’m 100% for people using marriage as purely a contracted construct of convenience just so that they can get the benefits (tax, medical, whatever). And I’m also 100% for people who truly love each other using marriage to tie their lives and livelihoods together in a fashion that, culturally, bears a great deal of emotional significance. I’m even (shock and horror) 100% for people using it for both!
Those people using marriage as a contract are not subtracting from or subverting the marital bliss or marital success of those other people using it for love. And the people using marriage for both are not somehow undermining the other two groups who use it only for one or the other.
And yet the anti-SSM folk seem to think that two people of the same sex marrying each other for love somehow degrades their own hetero-normative vows with or without love. They think that does more damage to the “institution of marriage” than the people using marriage as a contract of convenience. That’s the argument that the “intellectual” anti-SSM folk are using.
And they can’t prove it. But they keep reiterating it as if it were true. Just like the “non-intellectual” anti-SSM folk.
We’re neglecting an entire side of this situation: the downsides of marriage.
The financial benefits of marriage (primarily tax breaks) are obvious. But married people also have a legal obligation to support each other financially, and under some circumstances, quite a lot of circumstances actually, this obligation survives divorce.
Furthermore, if you are married in a community property State like California or Oregon, every dollar you earn by working during the marriage belongs half to your spouse. From the day you earn it. (Non-community property States have similar but different arrangements.) If you are highly paid and your spouse doesn’t work at all, surprise, half of what you make belongs to him or her. You can confidently expect this spouse to assert that property right upon divorce. These rights can be waived in advance, but don’t count on that suggestion being taken as a sign of great love during courtship, and such agreements are routinely challenged when things don’t work out.
The State, you see, is trying to do something more here than enforce a contract to buy and sell potatoes. It is trying to build families, that is, interrelated groups of people who are pledged to take care of each other (from “love” or from some other motive, the State isn’t so interested in that part), and who are pledged to take care of any children (who are economically helpless for many years) who may come by one means or another into the group. (And by the way who are required to support each other financially.) This isn’t so much about “creating new taxpayers” (California at least already has more than enough people) as it is about forming groups which will be economically responsible for their members so that the rest of the society does not have to support them.
So far as I can see the gender or number of these mutually-pledged groups is of secondary importance to the State’s legitimate aims.
The legal obligation of mutual financial support is also the reason no one thoughtful is really sitting up at night worrying about legalized polygamy. I confidently predict that the number of people who are willing to pledge to support two or more other adults will be vanishingly small. If someone wants this, however, all parties are adults and there is no coercion involved, I don’t see what’s wrong with it from the secular society’s point of view. Religious organizations vary very much on their view of this, some mandating this behavior, some permitting it, some prohibiting it, but that would be the business of the various churches.
Yes! This!
@nobody.really – those Zimmerman articles were great. Thanks for sharing.
At LAST someone has the guts to call it like it is.
I’m SICK TO DEATH of all these damn people insisting on special rights for gays. Look, I have nothing against gay people. Heck, I’ve even listened to Elton John music. Twice. (But don’t get any funny ideas; it’s just that the tuner on my car radio is broken….) In any event, the fact that I think we should all learn to tolerate gays is not the same as thinking that the law should be coddling gays. In fact, I feel a little nauseous even typing the words “coddling gays.” And now I’ve done it twice!
Anyway, my point is simply this: The institution of marriage provides benefits for society, but MARRIAGE HAS DOWNSIDES. If for the good of society I have to be exposed to the risk of getting trapped in a marriage with the person I’m lusting after, then gay people should have to run the SAME DAMNED RISK. No special treatment – none!
And don’t get me started on that whole military service thing….