Dale Carpenter has finished his Volokh guest-blogging on same-sex marriage. (Actually, he finished last week.)
Although there are some minor details I disagree with, on the whole I think Dale did a wonderful job laying out the case for same-sex marriage – well-organized and well argued. He broke his discussion into subtopics, so I’d encourage marriage-debate mavens to look through his posts, where you’ll surely find something of interest.
And speaking of Volokh, Eugene Volokh has written a detailed analysis of slippery-slope arguments, and how they do (and don’t) apply to same-sex marriage. (Pdf link.) It’s 47 pages, and I for one found it entertaining and informative.
I’m a young professional woman who supports same-sex marriage because it seems to me, to be an issue primarily of gender discrimination. The only reason why I cannot marry a person of the same-sex, is because that person is a woman…as am I. Every other requirement of the marriage contract is met with her presence (not a relative, of legal age, etc), except for her gender. In states which prohibit same-sex marriage, I do not understand how they are able to explain how this would threaten the commonwealth, especially in states with ERAs.
I would like the opportunity to take on the responsibilities and joys of a legal relationship to the woman I love. In fact, we’ve started a website to try to raise money to get married in Montreal this June. If you feel so inclined, please give us a visit at http://julieamandawedding.googlepages.com/home2
The Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (a.k.a., the Massachusetts State Legislature), with both houses convened conjointly as a Constitutional Convention, has voted on the Marriage Amendment. The final vote was 61 in favor of the amendment and 132 against. Only 50 votes in favor of the amendment were needed. If a similar vote occurs in the next legislative session, the amendment will then be placed on the ballot of the November 2008 general election. A majority vote by the public at that time will cause the amendment to become part of the Commonwealth’s Constitution.
I support the view that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, and I believe it is inappropriate to allow it to be used for any other purpose. In my opinion, the institution was conceived to answer the question ‘what do we do about children?’ What responsibility does the creation of a new life confer upon its creators? Are they required to be responsible? Yes. Of course. The alternative is monstrous. So the decision to create life is bound to the promise of responsibility for it, and an institution that embodies that principle: marriage, comes into existence.
It is the building block of civilization, and I know of no civilization that has managed without it sharing this ethic. I don’t expect I ever will, any more than I expect to hear about a human being surviving without oxygen.
“It is the building block of civilization, and I know of no civilization that has managed without it sharing this ethic.”
OK. So, how far have you looked?
Not all of the world’s family structures involve generative pairs. Sometimes husbands and wives live separately. Children may be raised by mothers and the mothers’ families, for instance.
Why is gay marriage not something to do to ‘take care of the children?’ Yes, the childrne may be only biologically the child of one of the partners. Or perhaps they aren’t related. Would you deny remarriage to divorced or widowed parents? Would you deny marriage to parents intending to adopt?
And anyway, are you all up in arms about non-generative heterosexual marriages? If you have no intent to have kids, should you be barred from marrying? If you are too old or infertile, should you also be barred from marrying?
You may think “marriage is all about the kids”, but you’re wrong. It confers other benefits as well.
And you may think you know enough about the civilizations of the world to say that family structures are similar all around, but really, they aren’t. There are languages without differentiation between ‘mother’ and ‘aunt’. There are places where a woman marries a pair of brothers. There are cultures that consider heterosexual sex offensive to the spirit world, so it is barred on certain ritual days.
The box you outline is too small.
Marriage was certainly established in part to provide a protection for children. But there are other reasons, which I find well expressed in the Episcopal Church’s Book of Common Prayer. From page 423:
The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.
This all seems relevant to American culture, certainly. I would say that anyone intending to have children should be married, but I would not say that the ability and intent to have children is a requirement for marriage.
“I would say that anyone intending to have children should be married”
I have a couple quibbles with this statement. I’m not trying to pick on it, I’m just not sure who you’re trying to suggest should marry.
A) This could mean that people in a homosexual partnership shouldn’t have children they intend to raise together, because they can’t marry.
B) This could mean that people who intend to stay single or not have a partner — such as older mothers who wish to raise a child alone — should not have children. This would mean that you’re questioning, for instance, Nick Kiddle’s decision to have a child.
C) This could mean that people who could legally get married, but have chosen not to legally get married for one reason or another (they don’t like the institution, they have a financial incentive not to marry, whatever) should not have children.
I don’t beleive any of these are true. I suspect (though I could be wrong of course) that you meant C — if so, why? Why not leave it up to individual families whether or not they feel marriage is better for them and their children?
Mandolin: OK. So, how far have you looked?
I have looked far enough to recognize that while there are certainly very great differences in local customs, there are themes that are universally present, and there are themes that are universally absent. Moreover, history has been combed most diligently by scholars on both sides of this argument for historical precedents to support their positions. Were there a prior civilization that diverged from these common principles (and thrived), I’m certain those who argue that doing so is beneficial would have made us aware of it.
RonF, well put. I agree there other advantages to marriage beyond child rearing, but they are not the point. A marriage’s form and functions, and by extension our concept of family and family obligation, have changed over the years and from culture to culture, but have always been designed to serve the needs of the helpless and dependent, and preserve the bond of trust between generations by requiring each generation to act honorably to those that came before and come after.
I am not against childless marriages, such as between the old or infertile you mentioned, Mandolin. I am against the push to apply standards that serve the desires and interests of unencumbered adults to relationships that include children and elderly. If you intellectually separate the concepts of family, children from marriage, that is what occurs.
Yeah, before you know it, people will get married only for love. And then the Commies will kill us in our beds.
Children have died in their beds and on the streets because their parents thought the emotion, the high, was all it was about, then found they didn’t love each other as much as they thought they did, and moved on. Elderly have died alone in their beds, or alone on streets because when they were young they felt the same way, abandoning their children, who in turn abandon them.
I’m glad you take it so seriously.
Hi CJ,
History ain’t the only game going. Have you ever studied anthopology?
What “themes” are you referring to? Be specific and I can be specific about how they’re not universal.
And why does it work to separate family and children from marriage for SOME couples that you approve of but not for others that don’t get your magic exception of okayness?
But really, the major flaw of your argument is how does gay marriage separate family and children from marriage? They want to form families. Thos efamilies may have childrne in them. They may not be generative pairings creaitng children, but neither are some other family structures across the globe which nevertheless manage to raise kiddies.
Actually, Mandolin, I’ll sign up for all three of those. If a single person chooses to have a child, I’ll wish them the best, because that’s what every child deserves. But I don’t think it’s the best choice.
3. CJ / Jan 3 @ 5P
“. . . the institution was conceived to answer the question ‘what do we do about children?’”
The “institution” was “conceived” to answer the question “what do we do about the property / about the alliances between groups?”.
Let us remember that women and children were property – property of the fathers, the brothers, the uncles, the sons. Women historically had little or no input in the marriages.
Marriages were not about the little angel baby children. They were about securing land rights and alliances for men. Children (male children) were a way of assuring the men the the aquisitions resulting from the marriage alliances stayed all in the family – women couldn’t own property (because remember women were property).
And perhaps it is important to remember that marriage is not a prerequisite to procreation.
Unmarried people can procreate without being irresponsible – many raise their children just fine without a marriage license. On the flip side, many married people do not raise their children just fine even with a marriage license.
Just sayin’ . . .
Mandolin: What “themes” are you referring to?
That one generation is responsible for the generation that comes after, and the generation that came before, and that translates into specific responsibility by the current adult generation for their direct offspring and parents. Family. Different cultures divided the duties differently, sometimes by sharing them communally, often they were closely tied in with religious beliefs, but they have an identical purpose, and insofar as these cultures have endured for literally thousands of years, they have achieved that purpose, regardless of the ways their model of marriage differs from ours. I doubt in all the differences you intended to enlighten me about, you will pull out an example of an honorable culture that has a practice of allowing a parent to absolve themselves of responsibility for their offspring.
why does it work to separate family and children from marriage for SOME couples that you approve of but not for others
I realize I may be viewed as hypocritical for that. I wobble between wanting to be generous and holding firm to important ideals. There is a world of difference between being kind to those who can never have children, and consciously altering our understanding of our most fundamental and important social construct.
But really, the major flaw of your argument is how does gay marriage separate family and children from marriage?
They themselves insist that marriage has nothing to do with children, but the separation of family, childrearing and marriage is not caused by gay marriage it is a requirement of gay marriage, the same as it is any other form of alternative marriage that, like gay marriage, wishes to gain acceptance. These are not minor or immaterial differences in form, they touch upon our most sacred assumptions and relationships.
The root of the institution is the need for intergenerational survival. On the personal level, the level of you and me, this means simply this: when we produce children, we are bonded with them, and are responsible for taking care of them. We can be helped, guided, educated, we share the responsibility with the other parent, but we cannot surrender it willingly. The only possible alternative point of view is: when we produce children, we are not bonded to them, and not required to take care of them, and that coin has two sides.
Allowing us the choice not to be obligated to our children makes surrogate parenting, homosexual parenting and single parenting possible. I can believe that every alternative format listed here, and others, has the potential to get a child into adulthood alive, but they are in no way superior to the traditional model, and are in some ways very inferior. They certainly break the link between generations, either on the mothers or the father’s side or both, disconnecting the children from their forebears, and the parents from their descendants, promoting the paradigm that it is only ourselves and our desires that matter, that who came before and who comes after are not our concern. I don’t believe it is possible to overstate the damage that has been inflicted by this thinking.
Millions of people make the decision to procreate every year. Many wisely, but many impulsively. We can either have them make their decisions with the understanding that they will be held responsible for their actions, or we can have them understand that they are only responsible if they choose to be.
The “institution” was “conceived” to answer the question “what do we do about the property / about the alliances between groups?”.
Marriage was not concieved as a land control mechanism that also happened to be useful for parents. Rather, I think it was the reverse.
Let us remember that women and children were property – property of the fathers, the brothers, the uncles, the sons. Women historically had little or no input in the marriages.
In some cultures that has been true. In others the women were the rulers of their families. So what? I don’t see how you connect ‘women are not property’ to ‘adults are not expected to be responsible for their children’.
The institution of marriage predates the invention of land rights and private real estate. So the “it’s about land” theory doesn’t fly.
(It might be about goats.)
The institution of marriage predates the invention of land rights and private real estate.
The ‘institution of marriage’ predates the notion of control and ownership of land? Are you one of those weird hippies who thinks that once upon a time we all lived in communal happiness?
consciously altering our understanding of our most fundamental and important social construct
We’ve already done that. Marriage has, until recently, been a social mechanism for binding families together, controlling paternity and arranging kin networks (not to mention that whole property thing). In modern America, it’s a love match with legal strings attached. Getting rid of a wife’s legal subordination to her husband was about as radical, fundamentals-altering a change as you could imaging making in our historical (not to mention legal) conception of marriage.
There have been societies that allowed same-sex marriage when one member of the marriage had ‘crossed over’ and was thought to be of ambigous or a different gender, but I’ve never heard of one that actually gave wives and husbands equal rights and power in marriage.
The ‘institution of marriage’ predates the notion of control and ownership of land?
By ordinary, individual people.
In most places and for most people, land ownership was originally tribal. You might have a perfect right to farm a patch or hunt in a place, but it wasn’t your land personally. It was the tribe’s.
Are you one of those weird hippies who thinks that once upon a time we all lived in communal happiness?
Happiness, I have my doubts. Communal, no doubt about it. Individualism of the stark modern sort so widespread nowadays is a pretty recent development, I think.