I have frequently recommended the chapter “What is Marriage for,” in Jonathan Rauch’s book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America as one of the few pieces which actually takes seriously the meaning of gay marriage. Today, I was delighted (and surprised) to discover another such piece while checking out National Review Online.
On their front page, that conservative journal offers a piece by law professor (and GPW acquaintance) Dale Carpenter listing the ten areas of agreement on gay marriage. Articulating anew an idea that Andrew Sullivan introduced in his Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, Dale contends:
This “conservative case” has rested on the idea that marriage would benefit gays, generally by encouraging long-term commitment among gays and particularly by settling gay men. It would therefore benefit our whole society.
Hmm. . . . doesn’t seem much different from ideas addressed in Plato’s Symposium.
These ten areas of agreement include the societal and institutional benefits of the institution and allowing “churches and religious authorities” the freedom “to refuse to recognize such marriages if they wish to do so.” Dale recognizes that we need to consider the “social effects” involved in changing “an important social institution like marriage.” Thus, perhaps the most important of his areas of agreement is that the change should be gradual:
If any significant change to an important social institution like marriage is undertaken at all it should occur slowly and incrementally, state-by-state, rather than in one fell swoop (as by court-ordered, nationwide gay marriage), so that we can assess the impact of the change and adjust the direction of reform or completely halt the reform.
I have one minor quibble with his piece in that he does not include monogamy in his list of the ten areas of agreement, waiting only until his conclusion to bring it up.
That said, it’s a great piece and a must-read for those committed to the debate on gay marriage. I frequently fault advocates of gay marriage for not addressing the real issues of the debate. Dale’s article is a reminder that there are a few who understand what’s at stake, who recognize the impact of this significant social change and who have considered the meaning of gay marriage. It’s a great credit to the National Review that this conservative publication would post such a serious piece.
Now, as Glenn Reynolds would say, just read the whole thing!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Very good article! I personally agree with all 10 points.
I am, however very skeptical that it will sway many, IF any of the neo-cons!
For a really good sociological study on how the “Right” feels about Gay Marriage you should check out Sean Hannity’s Forums page.
I’ve been enraged and I’ve been uplifted by some of the opinions I’ve seen posted there regarding Gay Marriage.
(Warning! Those people don’t seem to have a life! You can spend a full day reading page after page.)
http://www.hannity.com/forum/
MarkP, don’t accept the media definition of neo-cons. I would actually characterize Andrew’s argument in favor of gay marriage not as conservative one, but as a neo-conservative one. Many of the neo-conservatives with whom I have spoken seem favorable to the kind of gradual approach Dale favors.
LOL!
Point well taken! I was uncomfortable with that term as I typed it.
It was a case of “lack of better description” at the time.
Nothing like reality to put theories into place, Canada has a huge de-population problem as a result of the high abortion rates with low marriage rates combined with a progressive liberal social structure. Canada will not see the results of their experiments for another twenty years but when this time comes the reality will bite them hard. This is not about who can marry but really about why the social structure of marriage is important to maintain in order to be able to have a solid replacement structure in place.
Yes, homosexuals can raise children but they cannot pro-create them. Transference is not the same thing as replacement and we will all do well to recognize the value of a stucture designed to facilitate reproduction, otherwise we will be following Canada’s, as well as Europe’s predicament, underpopulation of the next generation who will be caring for over-populated babyboomers. The next generation will not have a clue about breeding their own next generation since none will have the ability to mentor.
People like to believe that ‘pushing the envelope’ is difficult but the reality is that reining in all our primal urges is far more difficult to achieve particularly when surround by a structure which encourages pushing the envelope. Those who have made the choice of doing all the dirty work involved in child rearing in order to provide replacements need all they help we can give them.
I am not against gay anything, but I am for recognizing the purpose of a solid social structure. I was born of the Marxist feminist generation which produced a social structure built by convincing females that children are a burden we must abort ourselves of, as a result we females have mentored one another to delay or forego children and child rearing, so much so, that our culture has become inept at child-rearing. Hillary tells us now that it takes a village to raise a single child. When I was twenty Marixist women’s lib sounded so great but after having lived the life for a quarter of a century I can honestly say today that experiment was a tragic mistake. Based upon my own experiences I find myself far more tuned to the consequences of instigating experimental social structures because I have been shown that our culture tends to get far too cocky in assuming that a carefree life where everyone can do whatever does not have consequences. I lived such a life and it does have consequences none were ever willing to face.
An extreme example of a break-down in social structure is indicated in the population extinction happening in Russia. By the year 2050, the Russian population will be reduced to between 80 and 100 million as a result of low birth rates, high abortion rates, no marital social structure, generations of imposed Atheism and demoralizing masculinity (Russian males have become so depleted that most are dead by the age of 50) Russia is non-breeding towards extinction.
The way that American Marxist feminism has pussified their way to the top by feminizing males to the bottom is one reason among many as to why I now reject such a movement for I see now how destructive such movement can be to a valid and necessary social structure.
Misguided and deceptive Marxist feminism has done great damage to the replacement social stucture, and from my own personal experience with that social experimentation I have come to understand the validity in maintaining a healthy social structure for people to be able to breed replacements. Marriage is not about tax breaks and benefits nor is it about Equalization it is about helping human beings to rein in their primal urges in order to be able to breed replacements.
Great article, Dan…. I’m glad the National Review published Dale, too. I’ve been a big fan of Dale for all of my “gay life” and I’m quite jealous that he’s a friend of GPW. 🙂
I’ve been thinking of writing a new post on gay marriage, maybe this article will spur me to do it.
Here is something that I find humorous and that ties very well into this discussion. See http://www.cafepress.com/fruitink.34789265 see especially the back of the tee. It makes light of something our administration fought so hard for last year.
One thing that my partner and I have debated a number of times is the issue of fidelity or the “settling” down of gays. I find it a catch 22 type argument. Is it that we do not respect our own relationships, thus allowing the broader heterosexual society to view us as “loose,” or is it that society in general views us as “loose,” and thus we fulfill the image because there is no reason not to?
Over time the view of heterosexual marriage has lost its sheen with more divorce, more infidelity and fewer long lasting marriages. More and more heterosexual relationships today seem to be mirroring those of gays; open, or maybe committed but without the marriage vow. Are they becoming “unsettled?” Are they working towards the view of “looseness” that only gays currently have?
Maybe what marriage needs today is an injection of individuals who will actually respect it for the vows that we all hope it to be. Maybe marriage needs same sex couples who are committed and have been for years to help it persevere as an institution of commitment and fidelity. Maybe if society were exposed to more gay marriages that have lasted they might not be so quick to judge gays and the need for them to be settled?
DA’s last paragraph should be repeated because he’s right on the money:
“Yes, homosexuals can raise children but they cannot pro-create them. Transference is not the same thing as replacement and we will all do well to recognize the value of a stucture designed to facilitate reproduction..”
Syn, good point, but take it to its conclusion. Birthing a kid is about a tenth of what it take to get him or her to “replacement” age. Raising the kid is what really matters, and this is where adoption has to come into the picture now and then. You can go to any trailer park and find plenty of toddlers……..
As for Canada, their immigration peole have a quota of new immigrants to fill every year, and it has always been like this, since the British set the place up. Their population problems have nothing to do with their birth rate. They have to do with the fact that Canada has a sucky climate for the most part and pretty thin soil in a lot of places. Every year they have to make up for the Canadians they lose to the US by emigration. I bet there are more French Canadians and their descendants in the US than in Canada.
As for the pussification of men – too true. Gay men tend to be a lot less pussywhipped than their straight horndog brothers, doncha think?
#6 and #7 — The problem is that many people who are strong advocates for gay marriage are also the most hostile to that archaic, patriarchal institution of traditional marriage. Which brings their sincerity into question when they try to make the argument that gay marriage will be good for society.
The ‘good for society’ argument is not advanced by the current strategies activists are using to pursue it. They treat marriage as a pinata full of social benefits (which I think are marginal legal conveniences for the most part) and are demanding a whack at it. When it comes to the benefits, activists are saying “treat us like everybody else,” but when it comes to standards of commitment and monogamy, it becomes “don’t force your values on us.”
“The problem is that many people who are strong advocates for gay marriage are also the most hostile to that archaic, patriarchal institution of traditional marriage. ”
If that is true, then we need to get better allies. And then again, it may be untrue. A lot of the ideologues that think marriage is a patriarchal system of oppression may happen to think gay marriage is some kind of accomodation to straight cultural dominance or some such twaddle.
And if marriage is so patriarchal, how come it’s called “matrimony”. And if it’s so patriarchal, how come fathers so seldom get custody?
but when it comes to standards of commitment and monogamy, it becomes “don’t force your values on us.”
Comment by V the K
=========================
Values embodied by Spears, Hilton, Aniston, and on and on?
Pure crap. Many gays live in comitted relationships more like marriage than plenty of hetero ones.
Changing the laws only gives greater access to benefits and recognised obligations.
#11 Pretty much everyone in the comments here have been saying that the “Values embodied by Spears, Hilton, Aniston, and on and on?” are the problem. That values of monogamy and fidelity are getting lost. The values of providing children with two parents and a stable home are lost.
And then you state that the purpose of changing the laws is exactly what VtheK said… a wack at the pinata of marital benefits.
I think that the benefits are important in the interest of fairness and in the interest of promoting domestic stability. I’m disgusted by the sorts of values people take for granted, what my Anthro 101 prof called “linear polygamy” and the seeming inability for people to grow out of the self-centeredness of toddlerhood. The “archaic, patriarchal institution of traditional marriage.” is something else than modern marriage, don’t you think?
#4 The one thing that seems to counter the self-sterilization in wealthy cultures is religion. I don’t think it even matters which religion… but it seems that religious people value children and feel that it is worthwhile to make the tradeoffs necessary to have them. That’s related, I think, to that archaic, patriarchal, traditional marriage, where it’s not all about “me.”
SSM is a right protected under the 14th Amendment. Rauch’s and Sullivan’s “conservative” case to tame male promiscuity may appeal to other conservatives, but in the first and last analysis it is a civil rights issue. The Amendment does not specificy for “heterosexuals only.” It applies to everyone. It’s another instance of where minority rights are protected by the Constitution, not “guaranteed” by the majority.
DSH, what does the constitution say about marriage? I can’t imagine that it says anything at all. It’s not at all self-evident that marriage is subject to the ideas of equal protection, etc. Marriage is, and always has been, limited in a variety of ways. It’s limited by age. How old does a person need to be? It’s limited by relationship. Can you marry your cousin? Your second-cousin? Your third? Can you marry more than one person?
A good case can also be made that marriage is a civil right. I’m just saying that it’s not *obviously* so.
Heterosexual marriage is being torn apart in our culture. Quite a few people are understandably concerned about that. A few less people mistakenly believe that gay marriage will just make this degradation worse. By insisting that respecting marriage is not necessary, that it is in the last analysis a civil rights issue, you prove their fears.
Nice site, thanks.
A very interesting site. Please more updates!