Well, bad time management on my part.
No time to introduce you to the joys of theories of the cognitive nature of social institutions, the relevance of the New Institutionalist Economics understanding of isomorphic institutional change, the developing legal pressures in Canada to repress opposition to its new normative understanding of marriage, or even why I think the most likely outcome of same-sex marriage is not polygamy but the end of marriage as a legal status.
Lucky you.
Thanks Eugene, for this opportunity. I know you know this, but you've constructed a pretty rare and special place here. I appreciate your generosity to me, and to those who disagree with you on this issue.
The wall is still up pretty high there. Maybe a few chinks of air and light that open up the possibility of understanding each other. But clearly not many.
A few last thoughts:
Remember how we were promised that unilateral divorce would expand liberty, and only affect people in bad marriages? Meanwhile the government reduced everyone’s marriage contract to the status of a gambling debt--alone of contracts, marriage promises cannot be enforced. Unilateral divorce changed the whole culture of marriage, not just those who divorce. And the people who advocated for it were so sure that more divorce would make children better off, weren’t they? Only a fool, or a religious zealot, could disagree.
Or think about legal polygamy. Seriously, how would other people's polygamy affect your marriage? Even in polygamous societies most people are monogamous after all. Why would anyone imagine that change in the law would matter? If you can imagine how, you can at least begin to see why so many of us think SSM is going to profoundly change the meaning of marriage in this society.
Or take the fact that marriage is an economic partnership. Suppose we expand the definition of marriage to include two business partners? How could that possibly hurt marriage? After all we aren't running out of marriage licenses, are we? Those who want their marriage to have something to do with sex and intimacy, would still be free to do so, no?
Ridiculous, I can hear SSM advocates say. SSM is not like that. Because in their heads the core definition of marriage is already personal intimacy and commitment, and gay people already “fit.” For some people, that's the answer. For me and I think millions of American children, that is the problem.
But of course if you are advocating for SSM, you really do know that social meanings matter. You've made passionately clear that an identical institution called “civil unions” that delivered all the legal incidents of marriage just wouldn't be good enough, because it doesn’t mean the same thing. You seek to use the power of government to take all those accumulated meanings of marriage (which were not created by the government) and re-direct them to same-sex relations, and many of you clearly also want to discipline those who don’t accept your moral view, to the best of your abilities. And so many want to do this in the name of liberty, without even acknowledging what SSM is: the use government power to impose a new morality on a reluctant people.
After SSM, the law will be committed to reclassfying the once-privileged conjugal vision of marriage—with its deep roots in the reality that humanity comes in two halves, male and female, who are called to join together in love, not only as a private satisfaction, but in order to make the future actually happen—as at best a private understanding and most likely a discouraged, discriminatory understanding of marriage.
If two men are married, then marriage as a public act is clearly no longer related at all to generativity, and the government declares as well it has no further interest in whether children are connected to their own mom and dad. So long as they have love, money and stability, fathers (or mothers) are equally dispensable. That's what "no difference" means. The institutions of government, including public schools, will begin to enforce this new concept of marriage. This is not a conservative case for marriage; it is the final triumph of the family diversity argument.
The internal contradictions are intense: Gender doesn't matter, except when orientation is involved, in which case gendered sexual desire matters so much we are morally obligated to restructure our most basic social institution for protecting children, so that all adults get their needs for intimacy and social affirmation met equally. Orientation, as a classification, assumes gender is a real and significant category of human existence; but apparently only for gays, and not for children.
And the people who advocate SSM do so (mostly) with very little insight into the magnitude of the change they are asking us to accept. After all you've decided SSM is a civil right, so you get to impose your morality on people in good conscience (that's what civil right means), and so you now don't have any responsibility or burden of proof in this matter: it is totally up to others to prove to you there will be any negative consequences.
I have most of human history on my side. You have your personal moral conviction that only hate explains why people object.
This is my one big message for SSM advocates: don't minimize what you are proposing. Take responsibility for it.
I’m grateful to the reader who described my view as saying that SSM will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. But that straw thing doesn't quite capture it. Because to me, SSM is a much greater change in marriage than either unilateral divorce, or polygamy. From where I stand, it is about as big a change as one can propose.
Imagine you stand in the middle of vast, hostile desert. A camel is your only means of transversing it, your lifeline to the future. The camel is burdened-- stumbling, loaded down, tired; enfeebled-- the conditions of the modern life are clearly not favorable to it. But still it’s your only hope, because to get across that desert you need a camel.
Now, chop off its legs and order it to carry you to safety.
That’s what SSM looks like, to me.
Same-sex marriage is not a civil right, because marriage is not discriminatory. It has its own dignity and purpose, rooted in real and enduring human realities. Marriage is deeply important not just to those who personally do it, but to anyone who cares about the future of the society we share.
Every society needs some social institution that channels the swirling erotic energies of young men and women towards each other, and towards generativity both in the negative sense (avoiding unwed childbearing) and the positive sense (encouraging babies). You need some way to tell men (and women) that fathers matter. In absence of some such powerful social institution, children suffer enormously, communities and societies are burdened with all kind of costs, government gets more deeply and intrusively involved in directing the details of family life. And yes, if the social institution weakens enough, the actual future of the society itself is threatened.
Sex makes babies. Society needs babies. Babies need mothers and fathers. This is the heart of marriage as a universal human idea.
SSM advocates instead demand we reshape this institution in law to be more equally affirming of adults' diverse intimacy needs. That is some people's idea of the great moral crusade of our time. Here's mine:
Children have a right to a society that respects their deep, passionate longing for a mother and a father; one that calls on adults to make significant sacrifices to satisfy this longing.
In the middle of a crisis of fatherlessness of unprecedented proportions, proposing to conduct this kind of legal experiment on marriage is not reasonable. It is not kind; it is not compassionate and it is not remotely just.
I know I didn't HAVE to read it, but you don't HAVE to look at a train wreck either. Never have a seen so many "therefore"s that did not logically follow from the preceding text.
Can I suggest, though, that when gay marriages are legalized, instead of quaint traditions like "breaking a glass" or "jumping a broom," we could have something truly epic -- "amputating the camel."
All the commentors here who think the government should encourage gay sex and gay marriage, and you think you can defend your position, please call into the Michael Medved radio talk show program, it is a 3-hour debate every day. I listen daily so I hope to hear you.
"What the h*ll was that all about????"
...the reality that humanity comes in two halves, male and female, who are called to join together in love, not only as a private satisfaction, but in order to make the future actually happen...
seriously makes me question Gallagher's attitude about gay people and their role in society in general. For if one's view is that men and women are "called to join together in love" independent of anything else, what happens to the modern conception of sexual orientation? And how then is the gay person to be treated in a society that seriously uses *this* principle to guide it? (Which of course modern-day American society doesn't for a variety of reasons.) That ultimately concerns me more than any of the marriage arguments. I'm beginning to see this as the start of a greater effort to further push gay and lesbian individuals to the fringes of society, to devalue their most deeply felt affections, and to encourage the attitude that their lives and relationships are irrelevant at best, and aberrant at worse.
But who can top DSEK's one-line summary?
And can't she see that she herself is seperating marriage from procreation when she fails to cast the issue of whether or not to allow marriage as EXACTLY THE SAME as whether or not to allow procreation.
We should not be discussing any other issue except whether or not to ban attempts at conceiving children that are not the union of a man and a woman. This is clearly the most important issue, perhaps the most important issue that humanity has ever faced. We have to face that issue. Not doing it at the same time we face the marriage issue is completely irresponsible. It IS the marriage issue.
* * * *
But Maggie is correct about that.
The SSM argument devalues sex integration in the name of "gender equality", which is actually gender exclusion in each instance of the single-sexed arrangement. Hidden in plain site under the claim of unjust gender discrimination is the demand for an entitlement based on classification by sexual orienation.
At least you did increase my understanding of the anti-SSM side - that it's supported by illogical arguments and predict the doom of Western Civilization. I always thought that someone could be intelligently and reasonably argue against SSM. After this "dialogue", I now understand that to not be the case.
Regarding divorce: does Ms. Gallagher somehow believe that the expansion of divorce laws was just crammed down the throat of an otherwise devoted and faithful populace, and that it then corrupted them? These laws were passed because a significant chunk of the population wanted the freedom to end unhappy marriages without one party having to commit a major breach of the marriage contract first. Would it be better for society to restrict divorce to cases where one person had committed adultery, beaten the other, or abandoned the family?
A side note - it used to be that women killed their husbands much more than they do now. I don't have the numbers, but there was a significant drop in the wife-on-husband murder rate soon after divorce became more accessible.
That's not quite what civil right means, I think. If people do, in fact, have a genuine right to marry any one other person they like, then whether this has large-scale consequences, positive or negative, is largely irrelevant (time, place, and manner aside- such considerations might be capable of providing a case to temporarily suspend SSM right only if, say, there was in fact a major population crisis). Only a certain kind of utilitarian would deny this- and, I think, only that same (rather odd) sort could accept the argument against SSM that you've been presenting here. Wherever rights derive from, it is not from the common good or the interests of society, and so considerations of the common good cannot show that people do not possess a right. On the contrary, the right takes priority over the good. This is, I think, the fundamental insight of liberalism in both its egalitarian and classical forms. Insofar as the form of you're argument rests on denying this, it rests on denying one of the core values of American political society.
The biggest "progressive" reform to marriage laws, no fault divorce was sold as a way of ending marriages that both partners wanted to end, but couldn't, under fault-based divorce laws.
Instead, no-fault divorce laws ended up paving the way for unilateral divorces by one spouse over the objection of the other. (Most divorces are not "mutual," and after getting a divorce the spouse who initiated the divorce usually ends up getting divorced yet again from her subsequent spouse, since most second marriages end in divorce. Getting rid of your current spouse doesn't get rid of your own difficulties relating to the opposite sex).
What guarantee do we have that gay marriage will not lead to similar unforeseen consequences?
And no-fault divorce does not benefit kids, either. it turns out that kids can be quite happy in an intact household with a mom and dad even when mom and dad are not romantically or sexually satisfied. They are less happy when the parents divorce, even if they remarry to other people and the subsequent marriage lasts.
No-fault divorce may be good among childless couples who don't seek alimony from each other, but it's bad for everybody else.
Does a gay businessmen really want to get married to his boyfriend when doing so will expose him to lifetime alimony payments should his boyfriend divorce him?
In most states, alimony is only paid by husbands to wives, despite the Supreme Court's decision in Orr v. Orr (1979) that alimony cannot be based on gender. (In practice, even poor husbands who put their wives through medical or law school are typically denied alimony, while even wealthy wives have a shot at getting alimony from slightly wealthier husbands).
However, California, which is home to some of the largest gay communities, is an exception. In California, unlike most states, men do get alimony (although typically less than if they were women). And in California, it is strictly forbidden to consider fault in alimony and property distribution, even if the parties agree to that in a prenuptial agreement.
So if a gay businessman marries his under-employed boyfriend, then seeks a divorce after the boyfriend turns physically abusive, he could end up paying the boyfriend a lifetime of alimony payments after divorcing him.
Is that really what successful gay men want? The misery of a lifetime of alimony payments?
But what if there's another animal that works just as well, but 5,000 years of tradition make it taboo? Does one person--or 500, say--using a mule make life more difficult for the traditional camel users? If you start with the premise that your solution is the only solution (i.e., "it's your only hope of survival"), then all arguments must lead to that solution. Where's the willingness to consider other premises?
Oooh...that sounds smart! But even if Maggie had all the time in the world to discuss these and other topics, I seriously doubt she would ever be able to give us a succinct, clear, logical synopsis of her position. She has plenty of conviction, but just doesn't seem to be able to wrap he own head around her own ideas.
Tnank God this is over.
Anti-gay marriage people run from or embrace "tradition" as tradition conflicts with or fits their own personal prejudices.
And the argument that allowing a few gay people to marry is a worse threat to marriage than divorce is so silly that it does not deserve a response.
Snicker. Heh heh.
On a more general note, I'm beginning to suspect that the reason we never got through to Maggie is we didn't explain to her what the word "reason" means as we were using it. Oh well, that opportunity's lost. I don't think anyone will weep for it.
And to all the readers here who think that Maggie's done a bang-up job exposing all the lies about same-sex marriage, yada yada yada, hopefully you'll get the point: Can anyone point to a single statement made by Maggie Gallagher this week such that, if you believed the factual underpinnings of that statement, would tend to lead to the conclusion that same-sex marriage ought not to be allowed? I don't mean a rebuttal to an imaginary counter-argument, I mean can anyone point to a single reason against gay marriage that was offered by Ms. Gallagher?
I personally believe that if marriage is a 5,000-year-old social institution, a change in the laws will not affect the weight and social importance of that concept in our collective culture. Permitting interracial marriages did not do this; permitting itter-religious marriages did not do this; permitting sexless or childless marriages has not done this. Even if marriage as a legal institution vanishes altogether -- a result at the end of the slipperly slope that I cannot foresee the way Ms. Gallagher does -- marriage as a social and cultural institution will not go away so easily.
I also am perfectly happy to see "civil unions" instead of "marriages" made available so long as the legal incidents of a civil union are identical to that of a marriage. A rose by any other name, and all. If the social prestige attached to a civil union is lesser than that of a marriage, so be it; I would expect, however, that given time the two will be seen as the equivalencies that they truly are, and our culture will prove to be stronger and more resilient than Ms. Gallagher fears.
can anyone point to a single reason against gay marriage that was offered by Ms. Gallagher?
Well, she did offer the usual canards about how gay marriage will lead to polygamy. . .
This is the thing that's astounding to me, is that there was literally no point at which she said: "Here's a reason (using the philosophical sense of the word) why gay marriage will lead to something bad." I've gone through her posts I don't know how many times. There's literally not one.
Short version: While all the arguments I've presented this week have been pretty weak, had I more time I could've presented some good ones, too...
Delightfully creepy, no? Frankly, if we're going to be banning people's marriages, I think the ones where the kids have deep, passionate longings for their mothers and fathers should be first on the list.
Not that ever makes a difference - the anti-marriage equality crowd have a predetermined answer they want to reach and no amount of discussion will change their minds. An analogous situation is gays in the military - even though they are present in many countries now without issue you will still hear people whining the same old whine that it will destroy the military if that ever happened in the US. Always seems to make Americans seem so delicate and unadaptive. Of course they aren't but itsn't it embarrassing to present them as if they are?
Its a fact that the 'institution of marriage' already includes same gender couples - too many exist. The real debate is about reasonable access to the civil contract, one Ms. G didn't engage most likely because she knows justifying it with US legal precedence is difficult if not impossible.
Gee maybe the next guest blogger should be a pro-marriage advocate so we can see the other side?
(Just kidding ;)
Wherever rights derive from, it is not from the common good or the interests of society, and so considerations of the common good cannot show that people do not possess a right. On the contrary, the right takes priority over the good.
How very well said. It only remains to be said that this offers us a lens to see MG and other conservatives as the Puritans of our day. Even worse, it puts her into the same moral camp as those liberals who would sacrifice individual rights to their own lofty, illogically constructed goals such as affirmative action and government civil service unions. It is a totalitarian vision at heart.
As for why her goals are illogically constructed: every step of the way there is a contradicting 'therefore' to the one she chooses.
A small example is her insistance that 'sex is for babies' Of course it is, but it is also for many other things as much zoology and many religions suggest. Once she ignores that, how can we follow her? The Talmud, while prohibiting homosexuality presents sex as a right independent of procreation. What does MG think of that? Should we overturn both strictures? Or only one? And, say, whaich one would you choose to overturn?
But a more fundamental flaw is this:
Ignored in her argument are any social roots that might contradict MG's teleological vision of the need for Marriage. To say that marriage is 'for' anything is to commit the same delicate logical blunder that presents natural selection as some sort of purposeful force. Marriage isn't 'for' anything so much as it 'arose' out of various societal pressures and needs. Of course society needs babies, but on an individual level there is a huge battle between the Male need to have as many babies as possible and the Female need to wrest as much parental investment out of her family group as possible. The history of marriage is a varying account of the by products of this war, not some grand teleological mission.
This is not to say that morality has no place, but morality without humility and even a bit of skepticism leads us back to the Puritans.
Are we as a society better off when children are raised in loving families? Of course. Is there any real evidence that SSM has any bearing on that? I don't think so.
You are deceitful bastards, aren't you? You know you want SSP to arrive, but you refuse to list it on any of your bullet points as an equal right that same-sex couples must have access to. You just hope no one notices.
Prove that you are capable of arguing for SSP if you want SSP. Don't try to sneak it past us. Don't hide your demand. If you insist on it, put it at the tope of your list of things you demand, and let us discuss it.
If you don't insist on it, then accept Civil Unions that don't grant procreation rights.
And then that get upset at MG for perceived character flaws and accuse her of not having a argument.
Oookay.
Good riddance!
You don't imagine that gay people who want to get married might not see the current law as a deprivation, rather than the loss of an educational opportunity?
Oh, she's already said that. (See, e.g., her ever-illuminating metaphor about that wall with the chinks and the things. Wall, bitches!) What bugs me is that Prof. Volokh is going to say what he's already said, that the people who don't think she offered anything constructive are just knee jerk types unwilling to consider an alternative viewpoint. And then say we made comparisons to Nazis.
Remember how we were promised that unilateral divorce would expand liberty, and only affect people in bad marriages? Unilateral divorce changed the whole culture of marriage, not just those who divorce.
Legal polygamy has a lot more history and tradition behind it than giving married women legal status apart from their husbands so if one is in favor of "traditional marriage" one would be in favor of polygamy, not opposed to it, or at least more in favor of polygamy than in giving married women legal standing. Polygamy in Western society would require rethinking a vast network of legal structures from scratch. In a 3 person marriage of 1 man and 2 women would the women be married to each other? Could the man divorce one of the women but not the other? Could he divorce both, leaving behind a SSM? If one of the women gives birth, what are the rights of the other woman vis a vis that child? Can a 2/3 majority make decisions about childcare or property, or do you need all 3? Does it matter which 2 are the biological parents? How does inheritance work? That's no easy task. SSM is trivial in comparison, as we have already seen in Massachusetts and in Canada, since it has not effect on the 2 person structure that these legal regimes assume.
Or think about legal polygamy. Seriously, how would other people’s polygamy affect your marriage? Even in polygamous societies most people are monogamous after all. Why would anyone imagine that change in the law would matter? If you can imagine how, you can at least begin to see why so many of us think SSM is going to profoundly change the meaning of marriage in this society.
The "definition of marriage" (I use quotes because I'm not sure what you mean here - legal definition? normative definition? something else?) already includes such loveless, purely business partnerships, provided the two people involved are of the opposite sex. There is absolutely no legal impediment to a man and a woman who are business partners with zero attraction towards each other from getting married should they perceive some business advantage in doing so. They don't have to have children, or even have sex, or even hold themselves out to the public as doing so. They're free to have sex outside of the marital relationship and despite all that, it's just as much a marriage as any other in the eyes of the State. But two monogamous gay people? Well that's going to lead to the downfall of Western civilization, just like it destroyed the Roman Empire? Count me unconvinced, to put it mildly.
Or take the fact that marriage is an economic partnership. Suppose we expand the definition of marriage to include two business partners? How could that possibly hurt marriage? After all we aren’t running out of marriage licenses, are we? Those who want their marriage to have something to do with sex and intimacy, would still be free to do so, no?
Funny how those "deep roots in the reality" and "making the future actually happen" are a requirement imposed only on same-sex couples. Opposite sex couples some of whom, as you are fond of reminding us, can produce babies, have absolutely no obligation to "join together in love" or "make the future happen" (i.e. have babies, be able to have babies or want to have babies).
After SSM, the law will be committed to reclassfying the once-privileged conjugal vision of marriage—with its deep roots in the reality that humanity comes in two halves, male and female, who are called to join together in love, not only as a private satisfaction, but in order to make the future actually happen—as at best a private understanding and most likely a discouraged, discriminatory understanding of marriage.
I've never said that all the legal incidents of marriage but a different label would be insuffiicient, but since you pose the question, let me ask you the same question. Would all the legal incidents, but the term "civil unions" instead of "marriage" be acceptable to you? If not, why not?
How is SSM "imposing a morality" on people? Is allowing divorce (fault based or not) "imposing morality" on catholics?
But of course if you are advocating for SSM, you really do know that social meanings matter. You’ve made passionately clear that an identical institution called “civil unions” that delivered all the legal incidents of marriage just wouldn’t be good enough, because it doesn’t mean the same thing. You seek to use the power of government to take all those accumulated meanings of marriage (which were not created by the government) and re-direct them to same-sex relations, and many of you clearly also want to discipline those who don’t accept your moral view to the best of your abilities. And so many want to do this in the name of liberty, without even acknowledging what SSM is: the use government power to impose a new morality on a reluctant people.
First, the analogy to divorce law makes little sense. Of course divorce law has ramifications for all marriages, including straight/procreative marriages. The precise problem in this case is that it isn't at all clear why gay marriages would undermine straight/procreative marriages.
The analogies to polygamy and business partners are similarly unconvincing: maybe a case can be made against polygamy on some other grounds, but obviously not on the ground that such marriages can't lead to procreation; and obviously a male and female pair of business partners can already get married, whether they procreate or not. So this hardly supports Maggie's thesis, and in general, what any of this has to do with showing that gay marriages in particular are a threat to straight/procreative marriages is left unclear.
On "social meaning", Maggie argues, "If two men are married, then marriage as a public act is clearly no longer related at all to generativity, and the government declares as well it has no further interest in whether children are connected to their own mom and dad." But again, the precise issue is that gay marriages don't actually have these "clear" inplications. Why is marriage "no longer related AT ALL" to generativity if we allow gay marriages? Why does it mean the government has "NO interest in whether children are connected to their own mom and dad?" We already allow all sort of non-procreative marriages, and all sorts of child-raising marriages where one of the parents is not a natural parent, and Maggie maintains that marriage is still related to generativity and still serves as one of its purposes to encourage natural parents to raise their children. The idea that gay marriages would somehow bring all this to a screeching halt is therefore not only unfounded, but contradicted by Maggie's own claims.
The same obvious flaw exists in her gender-diversity and children argument. She states, "Gender doesn’t matter, except when orientation is involved, in which case gendered sexual desire matters so much we are morally obligated to restructure our most basic social institution for protecting children, so that all adults get their needs for intimacy and social affirmation met equally. Orientation, as a classification, assumes gender is a real and significant category of human existence; but apparently only for gays, and not for children." But there is no obvious sense in which we are saying, "gender doesn't matter," as in fact Maggie points out. Rather, at most we are saying, "married couples are better than unmarried couples at raising children EVEN WHEN the couple is made up of two people of the same gender." Thus the statement is not that gender DOESN'T matter, but rather that marriage DOES matter.
Finally, her camel metaphor assumes what she claimed to be able to prove. Assuming the camel is straight/procreative marriages, she claims that gay marriage would be like chopping off the camel's legs. Again, I could see how this metaphor might apply to certain divorce policies, insofar as they have a direct effect on the "camel" (straight/procreative marriages). But she has failed to show gay marriages would have any direct effect on straight/procreative marriages (nor that any such effects would be harmful, for that matter).
So I am left where I started. My basic sense was that people like Maggie had a taboo attitude toward gay marriage: they possess a belief that gay people and/or gay sex is "unclean" and thus that gay people and/or gay sex must be kept away from marriage or else the institution of marriage will somehow be corrupted.
After what I assume were her best attempts to show there is more substance to her reasoning than mere rationalizations of this taboo attitude, I am left completely unpersuaded.
To make extended use of her desert metaphor, I think adding gay marriages to our current lineup of marriages is like adding a few non-camel pack animals to a long train of pack animals, many of which are camels, but many of which are already other pack animals. I take Maggie to be arguing that we shouldn't allow these new pack animals into the train because they might somehow harm the camels. But she hasn't shown any way in which the new pack animals might actually harm the camels. And since I suspected her all along of believing that these new pack animals were taboo and thus unclean, her inability to articulate and prove an alternative reason for believing that these new pack animals will harm the camels leaves me believing that a taboo is indeed all there is to her beliefs.
So the fact that these loveless, bloodless marriages exist (to some tiny extent) means that all of marriage should be conformed to that view of the institution? That we should build an institution around those outlier situations that warp the very meaning of the institution?
Given SSCU, not getting the term marriage is like not getting a smiley face sticker. If only all problems were so small.
I think that the commenters here would have been better served by actually trying to understand her arguement, than following their preconcieved notions that anyone who is against gay marriage must be a homophobe.
She did not convince me, but she did provide a clear picture of why people can be oppossed to this change.
Take a closer look at this:And here, in closing, she reveals her true colors:The only thing uncompassionate about this "debate" is the failure to allow gay couples to stand on equal footing with their straight friends for no better reason than unsubstantiated, fear-driven speculation.
Yes, you did. Civil unions are the law in California, yet SSM advocates are still pushing for same-sex "marriage".
Bob van Burkleo: Gay people have equal access to marriage - the union of a man and a woman - now. There is no right to redefine marriage to be something else. Opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships are fundamentally different. The government is under no obligation to pretend otherwise by calling them the same.
Cheers to Prof. Volokh for once again proving that he is the master of fairness. Please keep it up.
Also, it does little good to quote your superior morality at people when you have rejected their moral code.
For centuries, people have had to modify their behavior to comply with the laws pertaining to marriage. Now, however, we are asked to change the laws of marriage to comply with the behavior of some people. The people are not amused.
One (well many, but I'll focus on one) key flaw runs through this post: the idea that same-sex couples living together in committed relationships is something with which the world has no experience. Obviously this isn't true, though since she has no persuasive arguments, it is in her interest to characterize SSM is some fearsome social experiment (the same tactic employed by the don't ask don't tell crowd). Hundreds of thousands already do, as documented by the 2000 census, many of them raising children. The only thing they lack are the legal protections and civil recognition. So Gallagher really has no point other than to rationalize why they should be denied these legal protections and social recognition. And most here seem to have concluded that she has not made the case.
I literally don't know how to respond. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean? Especially would you care to show me (a) how it is that more than three states have civil unions; and (b) how opponents of gay marriage aren't also pushing to end those civil unions?
Dave Justus---
Please, pay attention. Those of us who are pointing out that Maggie Gallagher didn't offer any argument against gay marriage? We are literally pointing out that she didn't offer any argument. We're not accusing her sub rosa of being a bigot (well, some of us might be); we are intending our words in their full and literal meaning.
If you think you have a good handle on what Gallagher's argument was, please, I beg of you, tell me what it was. Because none of us can see it.
Well, I think "gay marriage will lead to polygamy" could be counted as a reason to oppose gay marriage, but she hasn't even tried to justify that claim. So whether she's offered any reasons is at this point something of a semantic dispute, and if she has offered any reasons they've been laughably bad.
If I wanted to be incredibly sympathetic, I would try to construe her argument as follows:
1) The sole public-policy justification for legal marriage is to encourage procreation taking place within a context that makes it more likely that children will be raised by their natural parents [rather than by single mothers, etc.].
2) Gay marriage will detach legal marriage from this public-policy purpose.
3) If legal marriage is detached from its sole public-policy purpose, the social meaning of marriage will change so that that purpose is no longer part of the social meaning.
4) Therefore, the social meaning of marriage will no longer encourage procreation taking place within a context that raises the probability that children will be raised by their natural parents.
5) The extent to which the current social meaning of marriage increases the probability that children will be raised by their natural parents is large.
6) Therefore, gay marriage will substantially increase the incidence of children being raised by single mothers, etc.
7) Children raised by single mothers, etc. are significantly worse off than children raised by their natural parents.
8) Therefore, gay marriage will significantly harm a large number of children.
It looks to me like the principal problems with Gallagher's argument as sympathetically constructed above (much more than she deserves) are premises 1, 2, and 3. For refutations of those premises, see the past thousand or so comments on Gallagher's posts.
Just to demonstrate, this is where those of us eager to have a full debate would expect and hope to find the reason I'm talking about. Yes, we say, what adverse effect would that be? We're not speaking rhetorically; we are asking quite genuinely, what is your contention that gay marriage would do?
I don't believe that that's an unfair question. But it is certainly not one that Ms. Gallagher answered. Houston Lawyer, would you like to help us out? What adverse effects are you talking about?
See, I was thinking it was more like "If gays get married, I won't be able to pretend they don't exist anymore."
On your sympathetic interpretation: That was my thinking, too, about what the real argument really is, but I still think it's funny that Gallagher herself never said as much! In a week!
There is absolutely no legal impediment to a man and a woman who are business partners with zero attraction towards each other from getting married should they perceive some business advantage in doing so.
So the fact that these loveless, bloodless marriages exist (to some tiny extent) means that all of marriage should be conformed to that view of the institution? That we should build an institution around those outlier situations that warp the very meaning of the institution?
The only thing uncompassionate about this "debate" is the failure to allow gay couples to stand on equal footing with their straight friends for no better reason than unsubstantiated, fear-driven speculation.
Um, no matter what your creative sexual preference (gay, incest, polygomy, you want to marry your dog, etc.) everyone has the same opportunity to participate in government marriage.
Creating and raising children in a married home is the ideal, thus the government encouragement, sponsorship and endorsement of the this type of relationship. The government frequently encourages desired behavior (tax deduction for charitable givings, etc.). Why should the government encourage two guys or two girls to live together and hang out, and is it as important as marriage where children are involved? Of course not.
And the government does treat different genders differently where appropriate (women don't have to sign up for selective service, separate men/women bathrooms is fine, mothers and fathers are not the same). In marriage, gender matters when creating and raising children. I pity those who think a child is better off being raised without a mother or father, therefore, the gov't rightly encourages marriage.
Rather than war, sex integration through conjugal union is a blessing.
Right, so SSM is not relevant to the social instituiton of marriage.
Since the above exemplifies the typical quality of comments made here this week, the slogging through this thread will no doubt be more tedium. However, there are some open minds reflected in substantive comments by the minority (both pro and con) so I expect the exercise will be worth it. Staring at blank walls is also tedious.
Thanks Eugene and the gang at The Volokh Conspiracy. I am looking forward to Dale Carpenter's turn at the wicket.
Thanks for missing the point again. We're being charitable---at least if you had said that gay marriage would lead to polygamy, it would give someone a reason to oppose gay marriage. What we're really saying is that you haven't explained any reason to oppose gay marriage---just reasons to be enthusiastic about babies.
Did I get your argument right in my post above?
Don't flatter yourself Maggie.
Or think about legal polygamy. Seriously, how would other people's polygamy affect your marriage? Even in polygamous societies most people are monogamous after all. Why would anyone imagine that change in the law would matter? If you can imagine how, you can at least begin to see why so many of us think SSM is going to profoundly change the meaning of marriage in this society.
One of the many, this argument is left to the reader to make. Although I suppose it's clear that this is your idea of an argument.
And most pro-SSM advocates have plenty of reason for concluding that many (not all) anti-SSM proponents are in fact motivated by pure animus against gay people. However, regardless one can disregard everyone's motives and simply ask on what rational basis gay people should be prohibited from getting married. We haven't yet heard a cogent, rational answer.
I have most of human history on my side. You have your personal moral conviction that only hate explains why people object.
"Concern is frequently expressed that civil partnerships will undermine the family. Let us consider those arguments. Today's families come in many shapes and sizes and people face many challenges. Marriages break up, parents remarry and the structure of the family changes. Many families no longer fit perfectly into the traditional two-parents-and-2.4-children framework, but are extended families in which there has been remarriage and same-sex relationships. The latter are increasingly acknowledged and accepted, even by grandparents, who 25 years ago would have found such relationships abhorrent. No one suggests that the absence of traditional arrangements within those new family units has led to the absence of bonds of loyalty, commitment and support that hold families together. Despite the difficulties of modern life, those values have shown a reassuring durability.
The fact that the bonds of relationships have endured is due in no small measure to the way in which our predecessors in the House have adapted the law to allow it to keep pace with social change. We have seen reforms of property rights, tax arrangements, divorce law and child care, which have all played their part. We have always accepted that ordered change is the best way to conserve those things that we value. The issues of child care and work-life balance are a growing item on the political agenda and are becoming increasingly important.
Measures such as those before us today are a way of protecting the family in changed times, not of damaging it. As I have said, gay couples are a fact of life. Rather than ignoring their existence, perhaps the House can now take a positive stance on their position in society.
I am sure that the issue of child care, which often causes strong feelings, will arise during the debate. It will be argued, rightly, that the best environment for bringing up a child is with two loving, married parents. However, that is not always possible, for a host of reasons, and children are now raised in many different circumstances. What is most important is that love is given to the child and that there is stability in his or her home life. If we are concerned that children should be brought up by a stable, loving couple, these measures, when seen in conjunction with gay adoption, make a positive contribution to the family, rather than detract from it.
There is much in the Bill that I believe can be seen as deriving from the values in which Conservatives believe. It promotes responsibility and removes the intrusive hand of the state from people's personal relationships."
Children have a right to a society that respects their deep, passionate longing for a mother and a father; one that calls on adults to make significant sacrifices to satisfy this longing.
I see, so in the middle of this "crisis of fatherlessness", a crisis due almost exclusively to straight men, your solution to this "crisis" is, not to actually do anything about these straight men who are not around to raise their children, but instead to prevent gay people from getting married? And this is going to help the "crisis of fatherlessness" how? Gay people can't get married now (outside of Mass.), so how much good did that prohibition do in preventing this "crisis of fatherlessness?"
In the middle of a crisis of fatherlessness of unprecedented proportions, proposing to conduct this kind of legal experiment on marriage is not reasonable. It is not kind; it is not compassionate and it is not remotely just.
I would say that deontologist has it right. Individual righs, freedom and equality, must be elevated over the majority opinion, or even an objective conclusion, as to what is good. That is the sublime nature of the American political experiment, the heart of our national understanding and ideological values.
Of course, I do allow that to me your fears seem, well, somewhat overblown. Somewhat pessimistic. Unrealistic even. Time will tell.
But now, I am off to Lethbridge for what you might call a social experiment or a step in the downfall of western civilization, but what I call getting married to the man I love and to whom I am committing my life.
Peace and out.
Or at least I'd like to.....
I really like how Maggie alluded to all of the really sophisticated and scientific arguments she totally intended to make, but couldn't because she ran out of time. Yeah, and I have this really hot girlfriend who's a lingerie model, but she lives in Canada, so you wouldn't know her.
Did Maggie provide supporting logic, reason and evidence in support of her argument as summarized by Orin? If so, ditto on the editor's comment above.
And Ms. Gallagher, for you to stop in here and respond merely to the comparatively trivial point about polygamy, thereby ignoring the more important, high-level critiques, only gives more support to the point that you are advocating an empty position on SSM harm.
the developing legal pressures in Canada to repress opposition to its new normative understanding of marriage
Rather than trying to win converts in this crowd, you should go back to your base with a much more coherent argument:
1. Homosexuality is immoral.
2. The government should not facilitate/reward immoral behavior.
While many/most of us here disagree with both of these, the same is not true of anti-SSM people.
That is an excellent example of a general category of argument: that marriage is far more likely to be good for gay couples and the children raised in such marriages than gay marriages are likely to be bad for straight marriages and the children raised in straight marriages.
So I get back to the same position: Maggie apparently sees gay people and/or gay sex as taboo, so it doesn't matter how much gay couples and their children would benefit from marriage, because gay people are bound to corrupt and destroy straight marriages once their uncleanliness comes into contact with the institution of marriage.
Maggie didn't even propose the argument that Orin synthesized for her. He came up with that on his own (possibly with some help from the commenters). That's what makes this so frustrating; we keep pointing out that she hasn't said anything, but her only response is to insist that we haven't seen what's she said.
Why are married men mutually exclusive with generativity being one of the purposes of marriage as a public act? Why doesn't the second marriage of my father (a widower) at age 74 to a post-menopausal woman have the same impact on generativity as two men marrying?
I skimmed the comments, so forgive me if somebody's already addressed this. People seem to be laboring under the misconception that "civil unions" will suffice to provide the same legal benefits as marriage. This may be so at the state level in certain states. However, the federal government bestows certain benefits only on "married" couples, not on "civilly unionized" couples. If federal and state laws are changed such that participants in "civil unions" are entitled to the same legal benefits as married couples, than "civil unions" become a viable alternative. Currently, however, civil unions do not bestow the same rights as marriage, and as such, they do not represent a solution to the gay marriage debate.
The burden is on those of you who want to make a radical change to a fundamental societal institution to demonstrate that it will not do harm. You haven't explained any reason to change the definition of marriage.
Gallagher has offered many reasons for her position. Those who keep saying she's not making any arguments are being disingenuous. Arguments you don't like are still arguments.
How much did HHS pay you for your blog entries? Were you being paid by the word? Because I guess that would help explain why you would write so much while saying so little...
There must be hundreds or thousands of other people who could have taken on this role who actually have the brainpower and aptitude to do so on a site like the VC. As someone pointed out earlier, she truly is the Harriet Meiers of VC guest bloggers.
Alas, after the dust settles we still have the ignore it, pretend it isn't there, and in a weird "prophecy fulfilled" kind of way wind up proving its premise all over again.
Through careful application of blinders, they keep their opinions safe and remain "unpersuaded". Marriage Equality Now! is their cry, but it is not equality that they seek. Boil it down and we simply have a legal amphibology at work, a homogenization at the governments expense. And children's rights, welfare for the handicapped, constitutional seperation of powers, and even science be damned, full speed ahead.
Its no wonder that an increasingly growing number of americans, though they are more tolerant towards homosexuality each year, they are less tolerant of the redefinition of marriage in the image of ss"m". Because the cry for equality is fatuous (as the link above explains), the concerns for children are valid, the fraudulent application of disability is indicting.
Other than what was summarized by Orin, please summarize her arguments.
Excellent, civilized arguments you have provided this past week or so. I appreciate your work.
For some reason, in this modern society, it takes guts to merely reaffirm old truths; to wit, male-female monogamous marriage is the best vehicle to: (1) raise kids and (2) civilize an immense/diverse group of people.
I have no animus towards gays. I'm not against gay marriage per se, I'm just for traditional marriage and I don't believe the tinkerers out there have any idea what the consquences of such radical, and abrupt changes to our traditions will reap.
Then why couldn't you even begin to muster any counter argument? Try again, with an argument, not ad hominem.
Suppose this one female has a hankering for this other female who is married. The only way the husband will allow consumation is if the hankering female marries the husband.
Say, where can I get one of those?
Saudi Arabia?
Fuhhgedaboutit.
And that's the whole problem with Maggie's argument: it doesn't go far enough.
Many conservatives of the "religious right" variety advocate a return to "covenant marriage." And Maggie's argument against SSM would be coherent and defensible as part of such a program. But it isn't. And it makes sense to ask, "why not?"
1. Most importantly, there just isn't much public support for the reinstitution of "covenant" marriages -- marriages in which divorce would require the old-fashioned showings of abuse, abandonment, adultery, etc. Indeed, it seems people are pretty happy with the current situation: marriage is ostensibly till death us do part, but in reality is until we grow tired of each other.
2. Given the unpopularity of "turning back the clock" and trying to undo the damage these other changes (such as no-fault divorce) have wrought on the institution, Maggie and friends have chosen to draw a line in the sand against same-sex marriage. In and of itself, that might be defensible: just because the larger battle is lost doesn't mean we have to be a participant in the next logical step in the redefinition of marriage. But step back a moment, and you'll see Maggie's critics are correct: SSM is, at most, a rather trivial change in the "definition of marriage" in modern society. It does not even come close to no-fault divorce in terms of impact. It is, as others have noted, just an ordinary consequence of a culture (in common parlance and as a legal culture) in which people of the opposite gender with absolutely no sexual attraction to each other or no long-term commitment to each other are free to marry, and that marriage is recognized by the State as perfectly valid.
So that's my problem with Maggie's argument: it is conservative enough to be palatable to the masses, but not conservative enough to really make a change.
And, by the way, the claptrap about "not having time" to talk about the New Institutionalist Economics, etc." is exactly that. Prof Volokh and the other conspirators gave you all the server space in the world to make a sound argument grounded in theory. Maggie gave us the editorial page spiel she's been refining for several years. This is a common interest legal and public affairs blog, but with an uncommonly educated readership. Social and legal theory at a very high level of abstraction are discussed here everyday. And Maggie did that readership a disservice. If Prof Volokh had set out to find a strawman to show the intellectual vapidity of foes of SSM, he scarcely could have done better than this ...
It's not my job to help you understand her arguments.
Phlogiston, phrenology, epicycles, flat earth, the vapors, the humors, the sex life of a Spartan warrior.
The burden is on those of you who want to make a radical change to a fundamental societal institution to demonstrate that it will not do harm. You haven't explained any reason to change the definition of marriage.
I'm merely going to point out this is a rather novel rule of debate. Must those who want to teach intelligent design in schools "demonstrate that it will not do harm"? Must those who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade show that it is harmless? Creative, but unjustified.
And if you believe that Ms. Gallagher has made an argument why marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples, please, show us where. I know it's hard for you to believe that we're saying this in good faith, but we quite sincerely do not believe she's given us any reason to agree with her. I mean this literally, not rhetorically.
(Just to be clear: By "reason" I mean a statement that, if accepted as valid or true, would counsel in favor of Ms. Gallagher's conclusion. It needn't be a dispositive reason, but we are still looking for any argument against allowing gays to marry.)
She hasn't made an argument, and this week was supposed to be about presenting the case against SSM. The burden, therefore, is on your side this week. With the next guest blogger, the burden is on the other side. Possibly a valid criticism for then, but not now.
Although I think civil unions aren't a perfect idea because a) having an equivalent word will weaken the specialness of marriage b) as one of my (straight) friends put it "I don't want to get civil unioned one day, I want to get married!" and c) it'd require a federal civil union statute as well, while marriage can be done just by states. Nonetheless I'd be more than happy to take a situation where only the name was different if it made people happy.
I still can't understand why Ms. Gallagher thinks that married couples raising adopted children cuts the relationship between marriage and procreation *only if the couple is gay, not if they are straight.* This continues to be totally baffling.
Of course, an alternative to giving same-sex couples marriage licenses is simply to abolish marriage licensing altogether. How did the State ever get into that business?
Go back and read. It's not my job to make you understand the counterarguments.
What if it was polygamy for the furtherance of a same sex liason? i.e. a sham marriage?
You honestly think that's a reasonable assertion? Can a gay person marry someone they would, as the NIS put it 'build a life with'? No. Further, gay people are marrying across this nation and around the world - the word is not being 'redefined' it already includes same gender couples. And if you have some empirical evidence that there is a qualitative difference between these relationships please speak up. According to all the studies I've seen they both want the same things, they both do the same things, heck they even bicker about the same things! And the humor of referring to 'the government' as if it was a person. The government is a mental construct that's fundamental purposes is to support the citizens and protect their rights. So yes 'the government' does have an obligation to make sure that ALL citizens are able to exercise their fundamental right to marry some one they really would want to 'build a life with'. Any government that doesn't has stopped being 'for the people' and should be discarded.
Oh and it is Bob Van Burkleo
If you replace "second-class" with "less than ideal" than I don't see how she could deny this, nor (perhaps more relevantly) why she'd want to do so. If one accepts her (distorted) vision that societies should want to encourage procreation (for heaven's sakes, why?), that this imposition of the morality of the (asserted) majority on all of us is legitimate, and that marriage is the instrument through which they do this (whuzzah?), then the rest follows.
Maggie Gallagher:
A strawman if I ever saw one. As long as the falsely reified construct of gender is used to discriminate, then both gender and sexual orientation are necessary as classifications. Heightened scrutiny is necessary to fight back against this irrational discrimination. In a perfect world gender wouldn't matter, but we live far from that perfect world.
That's because the change is only of such magnitude who propose the moralistic, deeply sexist conception of what marriage is/should be that Maggie proposes. If we assume her morally abhorrent sexist premises as to what marriage is and why the state supports it, then the rest of her argument is relatively coherent and logically follows. It's still not strong enough to stand up against a rights-based argument for SSM, but she would have at least presented a compelling reason why it would be in society's interest to ban SSM if it wants to adopt a pro-natal policy (a fact she seems to take for granted). But her argument is built upon a sexist conception of the universe, and should be rejected for that reason alone.
I don't mean to insult anyone, but, as an empirical matter, isn't that already where they are? Isn't the whole gay marriage thing about gay people wanting to be out of the