{"id":13935,"date":"2011-08-12T10:03:15","date_gmt":"2011-08-12T17:03:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13935"},"modified":"2011-08-12T10:03:38","modified_gmt":"2011-08-12T17:03:38","slug":"reply-to-george-xiv-justify-your-love","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=13935","title":{"rendered":"Reply to George: XIV. Justify Your Love"},"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

Robert George has some challenges for us \u201crevisionists<\/a>.\u201d He says we can\u2019t meet them, but you know what?\u00a0 He\u2019s wrong.<\/p>\n

What exactly is he saying?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

George starts with typical clarity and grace.<\/p>\n

Although the conjugal view is, despite its critics, not only inferable from certain widely accepted features of marriage and good for society, but also internally coherent, no version of the revisionists\u2019 view accounts for some of their own beliefs about marriage: namely, that the state has an interest in regulating some relationships, but only if they are romantic\u2014presumptively sexual\u2014and only if they are monogamous.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This sentence is 66 words long. The verb (\u201caccounts\u201d) doesn\u2019t appear until word 33. To get to the subject of the sentence (\u201cno version\u201d) you have to wade through four\u00a0\u2014 four!<\/em> \u2014 introductory phrases set off by commas. Is this trivial?<\/p>\n

No.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bad writing is a great mask for poor reasoning:\u00a0 If it\u2019s this hard to read, it must be deep! <\/em>Or:\u00a0 I don\u2019t know what he\u2019s saying but he sure sounds smart!<\/em> <\/em>Don\u2019t fall for it.\u00a0 In reality, convoluted prose often means there\u2019s less here than meets the eye.<\/p>\n

Anyway, back to his argument.<\/p>\n

Obviously, I disagree that George\u2019s conjugal\/procreative view is \u201cnot only inferable…but internally consistent.\u201d As we\u2019ve seen, it manages to be circular and self-contradictory at the same time<\/em> \u2014 no mean feat.<\/p>\n

The rest of the statement has problems, too. After all, no one is arguing that that state has an interest in \u201cregulating\u201d only<\/em> romantic, monogamous relationships. The state sets down law for all sorts of relationships:\u00a0 parent and child, guardian and ward, business partners, buyer and seller, donor and recipient<\/p>\n

This is so obvious, in fact, that I point it out mainly as another instance of George\u2019s inadequate presentation of his case, something that\u2019s allowed him to gloss over many of its flaws.<\/p>\n

George is really challenging us \u201crevisionists\u201d to demonstrate that (1) the state has an interest in applying marital law to relationships as long as they are (2) romantic and (3) monogamous.<\/p>\n

The purpose of government<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In point (1), as far as I can tell, George is bringing up a common theme among procreationists:\u00a0 The state has an interest in continuing the generation of healthy, educated, and well-adjusted citizens. Therefore, the state has an interest in regulating the relationships of those adults who bear and rear each successive generation. But why does the state have any interest in regulating marriage if marriage is unconnected to children?<\/em><\/p>\n

There is so much wrong here.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d like to start with the ugliness of the question itself \u2014 ugly, because it relies on the (understandably) unstated assumption that the state should only do those things which benefit the state.<\/p>\n

That may be the guiding principle in a totalitarian country. In a free land, though, we have to remember this: The individual does not exist to serve the State.<\/em><\/p>\n

For instance, freedom of speech is vital to good governance and is thus in the interests of the state \u2014 but that\u2019s not the only reason we allow individuals the right to speak freely. The same is true of freedom of religion. And assembly. And a multitude of other rights guaranteed to citizens.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s un-American to imply the government should secure a citizen\u2019s rights only if they are in the interests of the state. And it\u2019s profoundly<\/em> un-American to deny the citizens are endowed with:<\/p>\n

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Worth repeating: to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men<\/em>. It is not the duty of the citizen to justify his or her rights to the state.<\/p>\n

This is actually a major parting of the ways between our opponents and us. Conservatives, almost by definition, insist the burden of proof is on those who advocate change. But in a free country, shouldn’t the burden be on those who would limit that freedom?<\/p>\n

The “revisionist” case for civil marriage<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

So let\u2019s reframe George\u2019s first issue. Stop focusing on the interests of the state. Let\u2019s just ask why our \u201crevisionist\u201d view does<\/em> imply the government should enact marital law. Keep in mind that George isn\u2019t asking here why same-sex marriage should be legal. No, he asking why marriage itself<\/em> should be a legal concept under the revisionist view.<\/p>\n

First, let\u2019s remind ourselves of George\u2019s definition of this view:<\/p>\n

Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, this is easy.<\/p>\n

Adults who want to want to \u201ccommit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life\u201d will often want to raise children.\u00a0 It\u2019s perhaps the most daunting and profound task the ordinary person will face, and as a great book says, \u201cTwo are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s clearly in the interest of children to have a stable environment and to have regulations around the parents\u2019 commitment to each other and to the child. This is true whether you\u2019re a revisionist or a procreationist, whether you\u2019re same-sex parents or opposite-sex.<\/p>\n

But take children out of the picture. Imagine two adults, Riley and Jordan. Riley is a highly-paid Vice President of Manufacturing, while Jordan builds a reputation as an artist (but doesn\u2019t make much money). What happens if Riley dies?<\/p>\n