{"id":13797,"date":"2011-07-19T14:14:16","date_gmt":"2011-07-19T21:14:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13797"},"modified":"2011-09-27T13:41:39","modified_gmt":"2011-09-27T20:41:39","slug":"reply-to-george-xi-gay-marriages-will-destroy-straight-marriages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13797","title":{"rendered":"Reply to George: XI. Gay Marriages Will Destroy Straight Marriages"},"content":{"rendered":"

[This post is part of a series analyzing Robert George’s widely-read article, “What is Marriage<\/a>“, which appeared on pages 245-286 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can view all posts in the series\u00a0here<\/a>.]<\/em><\/p>\n

Pages 260-262: In which Robert George explains why legalizing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex parents to divorce.<\/strong><\/p>\n

At this point, Robert George has finished redefining marriage<\/span> laying out his concept of marriage. He changes direction and starts to explains why marriage equality would be bad public policy.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s good, sort of. George finally walks away from the arcane, byzantine logic he\u2019s been advancing so far and strides into the arena of recognizable public debate. These are the issues people discuss at work and with their families, rather than just in the pages of academic journals.<\/p>\n

George has a strange view of us.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

His first argument is that marriage equality will weaken the institution. As before, he starts badly:<\/p>\n

No one deliberates or acts in a vacuum. We all take cues (including cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of us)\u00a0 from cultural norms, which are shaped in part by the law. Indeed, revisionists themselves implicitly concede this point.\u00a0 Why else would they be dissatisfied with civil unions for same-sex\u00a0 couples? Like us, they understand that the state\u2019s favored\u00a0 conception of marriage matters because it affects society\u2019s understanding\u00a0 of that institution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cWhy else\u201d indeed? \u00a0He’s nailed us. I can\u2019t count the number of times I\u2019ve heard this conversation:<\/p>\n

Why can\u2019t you be happy with civil unions?<\/em><\/p>\n

Well, Joe, it\u2019s because the law shapes cultural norms, which means the state\u2019s approach to the legality of marriage shall influence society\u2019s understanding of marriage — and by extension, your understanding and mine. Now get me another beer, would ya?<\/em><\/p>\n


\nSeriously. As far as I can tell, among regular people — people who don\u2019t live in the pages of academic journals — same-sexers want to marry for the same reasons as opposite-sexers, and those reasons are mostly emotional. I\u2019ve written of that elsewhere<\/a>, but it\u2019s not relevant here, except to point out George\u2019s odd perspective on \u201crevisionists.\u201d<\/p>\n

George offers more of the same.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

However, since the whole aim of this project is to critique George\u2019s argument, let\u2019s see where he goes with it.<\/p>\n

In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults\u2019 emotional unions, not bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We\u2019ve already covered this in past entries, right?<\/p>\n