Those who read this blog know how regularly I have taken issue with gay marriage advocates for failing to offer strong arguments for the cause they so fervently espouse. For as long as I have been critiquing the great majority of those who speak out on this important topic, I have praised Jonathan Rauch for putting forward serious arguments in defense of gay marriage.
I have repeatedly cited the chapter, “What is Marriage For” in his book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America as getting at the meaning of marriage.
On Saturday in a piece in the Wall Street Journal, Jonathan once again made a strong argument for gay marriage. As with anything by Jonathan, just read the whole thing.
As did San Francisco Mayor Newsom last week, Rauch begins with the wedding of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. He contends that institutionalized gay marriage will encourage gay people to pursue relationships instead of settling for a life of random hookups. Unlike all too many advocates of gay marriage, Jonathan makes clear that he believes marriage is good thing as it “makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier.” Some advocates say that since the institution is flawed or falling apart, it makes no sense to exclude gays.
And Jonathan recognizes the landmark nature of our society’s recognition of same-sex marriage: “Honest advocacy requires acknowledging that same-sex marriage is a significant social change and, as such, is not risk-free. I believe the risks are modest, manageable, and likely to be outweighed by the benefits.”
I have a quibble with a few of the points Jonathan makes and a couple of the arguments he offers. I regret that he doesn’t consider the issue of monogamy in his piece (perhaps due to its length). All that said, it is a thoughtful essay and merits your attention. If more people articulated the case for gay marriage as does Jonathan Rauch, then there would be little doubt as to the result of the initiative on the Golden State ballot this fall.
Yeah, I saw Rauch’s piece yesterday and thought it was great.
Or at least… it will make the option (of a committed life) more real/possible-seeming.
Here’s all my opinions on gay marriage, in one package. Naturally, people will agree with some bits while strongly disagreeing with others.
– A State marriage license is a privilege, not a right. (Like any State license.)
– Therefore, gay marriage is a matter of public policy, not rights, and can morally be voted on.
– Gay marriage is good/desirable public policy, for all the reasons you and Rauch outlined.
– Marriage should continue to come with an expectation of monogamy. People who say otherwise are just trying to excuse their own piggishness. The sexual bond (in the deepest sense possible) lies at the core of marriage and people who are OK with cheating are, in an important sense, not really married.
– Since gay (male) culture has historically been weak on monogamy, that some straights would be skeptical of gay marriage, and would need persuading, is understandable. Gays who publicly claim that cheating is OK, are reprehensible.
I often wonder if we are looking to get at the truth, or if we have presupposed that gay marriage is beneficial and are just looking for arguments that sound good. Rauch’s piece is an example of the latter. A very well written amalgamation of very bad arguments. A piece that as its premise blames gay behavior on society. A combination of falsehoods and iberal arguments for gay marriage disguising themselves as conservative.
The first problem I have is with his idea that gays are promiscuous because they cant get married. First of all marriage existed for millenia before the United States government existed. But secondly, gay marriage and civil unions are lawful in several states and in much of europe. Is htere any evidence that promiscuity has declined as a result?
He also suggests that gay promiscuity is a result of gays being forced to live in the closet because of societal disapproval, but I think it’s been pretty clear that promiscuity has increased as gays have come out of the closet, not the other way around.
Then he tells us the reason gays wont stay together is because they don’t get government benefits. An argument that offends reason to begin with, but again, where is the evidence? To the contrary, the first couple to get benefits in Massachusetts is already divorced.
Next Rauch raises what appears to be the most popular canard of this debate, that society recognizes and rewards marriage because the couple is agreeing to “take care of each other”. Its terrifically easy to argue for changing the definintion of marriage when you assert the change you seek to make as fact. Families have taken care of each other. They have done so for — well, for ever. Children take care of their parents in their old age, siblings take care of unmarried siblings, yet children do not marry their parents. Dozens of states throughout the nation have reasserted the reason the government supports marriage, and I am unaware of any of them that say anything about “taking care of each other.”
The fact is, families, not just couples, have taken care of one another forever, and they do so because they are family, not because of government. Indeed, the entire idea that married couples take care of each other because it is a government sanctioned purpose of marriage is a dangerous one, because it establishes the contrary — that it IS the job of government to take care of those of us who are not married. An Idea that should be repugnant to conservatives and libertarians alike.
Then he twists the conservative argument around in order to argue against it
Which is wrong. Conservatives argue that marriage exists to encourage the ideal form of family, and that gay couples cannot avail themselves of the institution because they dont fit the formula. And that in order to accomodate gay couples that formula has to change. Which is precisely why Rauch and others have invented this canard that marriage exists to encourage people to take care of one another.
This is an important distinction. If the purpose of marriage were to encourage people to take care of one another instead of to encourage the nuclear family, then gays WOULD have a right, under the 14th amendment, to marry as they are entirely capable of taking care of one another — as would, contrary to Rauch’s claim, any other group of consenting adults, including siblings, parents and adult children, and indeed, as I have said before, if the purpose is taking care of one another, there can be no logical prohibition against polygamy, because if anything, groups would be better at taking care of each other than would couples. Contrary to Ruach’s argument that gay marriage doesn’t logically lead to polygamy, the redefinition of marriage that would have to occur to accomodate gay marriage logically necessitates the acceptance of polygamy.
Rauch gives similar short-shirft to the egalitarian argument, as if the space constraints he decries are of anyone but his own making, because he has no real answer to it. Gay marriage by definition says that men and women are the same and interchangeable. That a same sex relationship offers just as much to society as a heterosexual relationship. That any two adults will suffice as parents, and that none are any better than any others, including the biological parents. A radical redefinition of society that he glazes over because he cannot answer it.
And, almost laugably, he pooh poohs arguments that homosexuals will use marriage to suppress religious freedom, saying the Constitution provides more than enough protection, ignoring, of course, all the examples of when gay couples have sued religious institutions and won.
He again offends reason claiming that these arguments exist to keep heterosexuals from making bad decisions. Unaware apparently of the irony of simultaneously arguing that society should change its laws to prevent gays from making bad decisions.
But moreover, the first two arguments exist instead to define the institution and the ideals society is trying to encourage in the first place, and the third is defense against actions that gays have already proven they will take.
It is little wonder he tries to diminish these arguments so, because they are the very pillars of the institution he must destroy in order to build his annex for gay marriage.
He has the intellectual honesty to admit that redefining marriage poses very serious risks to society, but doesn’t have enough intellectual honesty to give those risks the serious consideration they merit, failing to even mention them.
And he inadvertently makes the very fundamental nature of these pillars crytal clear when he risibly concludes that holding the nuclear family, the fundamental building block, up as an ideal society should honor and encourage is a “radical experiment” because it doesn’t include gays.
If these are the best arguments gays have for same sex marriage, society really needs to reject it. They are flippant, dismissive appeals to emotionalism masquerading as debate.
At the state level, gay marriage is only a step. If and only if it becomes federal law, and the rights appurtenant to “traditional” marriage should go with it, like tax advantages and SOCIAL SECURITY benefits.
As to marriage being based on sexual intimacy, I look at the elders in my family and my own relationship. Some together for 60 years only had sexual intimacy in the early years when things were “hotter than a pepper sprout”. They did not divorce for lack of sex, even though our tradition allows it. My own 24 year relationship is comparable. LOVE is what binds a relationship, whether or not there is sexual intimacy. Those of us “of a certain age” and of a certain level of decrepitude remember sex well but don’t pursue it. What if we fell in lust? Nope. Better to stay with your life partner despite the dry years.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
AE:
When you ask if there is any evidence that promiscuity has declined, the first thing that must be ascertained is if there are any scientifically reliable statistics measuring the levels of promiscuity in the gay and straight communities over time. Without verifiable research to measure against, your question cannot be answered.
Anecdotally, I do know that sex clubs and sex parties are in decline in New York City. There seems to be much less of an appetite for the casual hook-up in bars as well. It is possible that this behavior has migrated to on-line, but in my experience of gay life, I notice a big difference from the world as I knew it when I first came out.
As for couples taking care of one another, marriage is a mechanism that helps couples do what (as you point out) couples have been doing for a long time — building a family. If heterosexual couples are granted the advantages conferred by marriage, there is no reason to deny homosexual couples the same assistance (unless, of course, you believe that homosexuals are not entitled to the same advantages and freedoms as heterosexuals).
If biological parents are the ideal parents for children, then I did not have the ideal parents since I and my siblings were adopted. It also means that my brother, my sister and myself are also not ideal parents since our children are adopted. I find no research indicating that adoptive parents are less ideal than biological ones. What scientific evidence is there that biological parents are better than adoptive ones? If biological parents are the ideal, shouldn’t society outlaw adoption since it goes against the ideal?
Same-sex marriage does not say that men and women are interchangeable. It merely says that a same-sex couple can achieve the same outcomes in taking care of children as an opposite-sex couple. In America, it is outcomes that count — what William James called the cash-value of an idea or practice. We are a pragmatic, non-ideological culture (though extremists on both left and right would like to alter that fact), and we look to life as it is lived and not as it is idealized for guidance.
As for gay marriage leading to polygamy, you assert that statement without providing a logical argument to support it. What are the rational steps of the argument proving that allowing a same-sex couple to marry logically demands that the right to plural marriage be granted?
You also speak of the risks to society if same-sex marriage is allowed. What are those risks? What harm will ensue (or, in fact, has ensued in Massachusetts since same-sex marriage was permitted there)?
ILC:
As for your reasons:
The State grants licenses which are a privilege. But the question becomes what compels the State to grant that privilege? Do citizens possess a freedom to marry as they see fit that the state is obligated to allow by creating the mechanism of a marriage license? To interfere with this freedom, does the State need to prove that allowing a particular marriage would be harmful to society? For me, the choosing of a mate and the creation of a family is a fundamental part of being human and should be interfered only when harm can occur to society and its citizens if no action is taken.
I believe that citizens have the freedom to marry and that in order for the state to interfere with that freedom it must demonstrate that to allow a particular type of marriage to occur would be harmful to society. Incest and coerced marriages are for me marriages that would cause harm to society. I also believe plural marriage is not in the best interests of society or its children.
Like you, I believe that monogamy makes for the strongest couples and should be advocated for. In my experience, monogamy deepens a relationship, making it richer, more robust, and more productive. I do believe that a sexual bond is at the core of marriage, but that it is not necessarily “sexual” in the way most people use that term.
I am not as sanguine as you about heterosexual skepticism regarding same-sex marriage. Too often I find opponents of same-sex marriage berating gays and lesbians for promiscuity without being equally zealous for the enforcement (or reinstatement) of adultery laws or crackdowns on the promiscuity in their own community. No-fault divorce encourages a weaker marriage commitment, and yet I see no movement to outlaw.
Brian,
First of all, it is not incumbent on society to prove that changing the definition of marriage would be bad, it is incumbent upon gays to prove that it wouldn’t. Your statements all take the former, and wrong, position.
That would be a problem then wouldnt it? How can gays claim that changing the definition of marriage will make gays less promiscuous if there is no evidence to back up their claim. But I’m sure there is evidence. For example have STD transmissions among the gay community increased or decreases in those places where gay marriage or civil unions are legal? I also know there are studies about gays attitudes towards sex and sexual practices because I participated in one. What do those studies reveal? Rauch and others can’t simply assert that promiscuity will decrease, they have to provide evidence, as they do for all their other claims.
Of course there is. If the purpose of marriage, as states have said, is to hold up the nuclear family as the ideal and to encourage it, that is plenty of reason. If you’re trying to encourage people to drive cars that get good gas milage with a tax incentive, you don’t also give the tax incentive to people who drive Hummers. This is not brain surgery.
If driving a Prius is the ideal, shouldn’t society outlaw all other cars? If working is the ideal, shouldnt society outlaw unemployment and retirement? These are all equally ridiculous arguments. We are still a relatively free society, people should remain free to make the choices they want to, but your argument is based in the idea that society shouldnt be able to encourage an ideal if you’re not included in it.
Adoption is a wonderful thing that society also encourages. Im glad you had wonderful parents and have chosen to adopt children yourself. And i certainly hope I don’t offend you here, I certainly dont intend to, but a child raised by their biological parents has distinct advantages. They never have to wonder why their parents didnt keep them, or where they come from, or if their biological parents “didnt love them enough” to keep them, and those sorts of questions. Yes, these are all issues that can be dealt with in a very healthy manner by loving adoptive parents, but they are also issues that may not be resolved favorably, but regardless, they are difficulties that children raised by their biological parents dont have to deal with. Additionally, the human desire to know where one comes from is powerful. Many, if not most adoptive children will never know their ancestry, but even more importanly, it is definitavely established that knowledge of one’s family medical history improves one’s prospects for proper diagnosis, prevention, and better health. Just for starters, these are all areas where a child raised by their biological parents has advantages that an adoptive child does not. Yes, adoption is wonderful, but that doesnt mean the nuclear family isn’t ideal. And I think society is in very real trouble if we cant recognize and encourage ideals for fear of hurting someone’s feelings.
Absolutely it does. If society must honor gay marriages and heterosexual marriages the same, then it means neither is better than the other. If neither is better than the other, then it makes no difference if people choose to partner with a member of the opposite sex or a member of the same sex, that it makes no difference if a child is raised by its mother and father, or by two men, or two women. Men and women are different. They each bring something very valuable to child rearing. The demand that gay marriages be treated as just as valuable to society as straight marriages negates ALL this.
Since when? Honestly, what country are you living in? The US Tax code alone is millions of pages of idealization. You can have a tax break if you do this, or this or this, you can’t if you dont. Why? Because we judge those behaviors to be better, ideal, for America. The newsstands, movies and TV are filled with images of ideals. Entire industries have sprung up around ideals. Behavioral, spiritual, environmental, physical, we are bombarded with ideals every single day.
I thought I made it quite clear, but let me try again
1. marriage exists, and the states have reasserted it, to encourage the nuclear family.
2. gay couples cannot form nuclear families by definition.
3. in order for gay couples to be included in marriage, the definition and purpose of marriage must change to something that includes both gays and straights.
4. which is why gays, like the author, Jonathan Rauch, have asserted that the purpose of marriage should be to encourage adults to couple up and take care of each other.
5. But if the purpose of marriage is not to encourage the nuclear family, but to encourage adults to take care of each other, then there is no longer any logical or rational reason to prohibit polygamy. Indeed, groups of people would be even better at taking care of eachother than would couples.
First and foremost is the demonstrable risk to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religious expression. Gay couples in Massachussetts have sued the Catholic adoption services for refusing to adopt out to them, and they won. In order to remain true to their religious beliefs, Catholic adoption services had to stop placing children altogether. That is of great harm to Catholics and great harm to society. In New Jersey, a gay couple sued a religious organization for refusing to allow their civil union to be performed on their property. The gay couple won and the religious organization lost their tax exempt status. That is of great harm to freedom of association and freedom of religious expression. And there are more such examples. But more than that the activist agenda of left wing gays, there is great potential for damage to the institution of marriage when you change the very definition of it. When you change the reason society supports it. What happens to marriage rates? What happens to out of wedlock birth rates? what happens to societal attitudes about marriage. Gay marriage is legal in much of Europe, where marriage rates have also been shrinking, divorce increasing and out of wedlock births rising. This is evidence that contradicts Rauch’s claims that gay marriage will strengthen the institution. The relationship may or may not be causal, but again, it is incumbent on gays to provide real evidence that gay marriage will at the very least not harm the institution or society, not upon society to prove that it wont.
#6:
Why should gays have to prove a negative?
The reduced marriage rates in Europe and out of wedlock births have nothing to do with gay marriage, especially the latter. Do these same European nations already have marriage-lite alternatives for heteros?
Because gays are the ones demanding that society change.
No civilization in recorded history has ever surrvived that was predominatly queer. The lifestyle is perverse as taught by nature itself. I can’t believe you folks call yourselves conservative. Your actions are just as revolting only I have noticed you “glossed ” up your website for people to think you really are normal.
When you ask if there is any evidence that promiscuity has declined…. Without verifiable research to measure against, your question cannot be answered.
– – – – – – – – – –
In fact, we already have clear evidence from Europe that promiscuity does NOT decline when equal marriage rights are made available to gays. Only a small fraction of of Dutch and Scandinavian gays have taken advantage of their right to wed – even when being married carries economic/tax advantages.
In Europe as in America, the vast majority of homosexuals spend most of their adult lives in non-monogamous, short-term relationships. This pattern is well documented in studies conducted by various national and local health ministries, and by organizations like GMHC.
Let’s remember that the gay rights movement was born at the same time that social and legal structures came to accommodate unmarried hetero cohabitation. If gays wanted to live together in relationships even vaguely resembling the committment of marriage, there has been nothing stopping them.
All of which explains why many heteros are extremely skeptical of the PC morality play that is being used to promote gay marriage.
Ben-David, that would make a great study; someone should look into it. In a previous post, I have asked whether gay marriage will tame men’s “piggishness”.