OK, that was not a serious conversation. But it's a serious subject; here's some food for thought. (Via Mark Shea, via somebody else I can't remember alas.)
The above linked article also discusses the issue of gay marriage. Jim Henley and Eve Tushnet are having a nice argument on that subject. Just a comment on this bit from Jim:
1) Eve: "Opponents of SSM need to work much harder on explaining what "the children!" are doing in our argument. There needs to be much more careful attention to the role of ideals and models in people's lives. Instead, we're getting bogged down in questions about infertile couples, etc., which I think are just plain irrelevant."The discussion also "bogs down" in discussion of couples who are childless by choice. There are a lot of them and, if one is male and one is female, they are legally permitted to marry in the United States. Clearly, while marriage is a sound structure for the rearing of children - I know no better - marriage is not just that.
It ain't bogging down to note relevant facts. Legally and practically, marriage is not only about rearing children.
Obviously, any marriage is not all about children, and some marriages are not about children at all. But Eve is correct about the "irrelevance" of the issues of infertility, childlessness, etc. Marriage, as a social institution, contra Jim, is not about "fairness" - it is about children or it is about nothing at all. Now I must rush to add - as all the knees prone to jerking begin to jerk and everybody starts talking about the law, their inheritance, their employee benefits, etc. - this recognition does not necessarily exclude gays from the institution, any more than it excludes the childless. The point is not whether individuals X and Y need to fulfill certain conditions in order to enter upon marriage. The point is whether the condition of X and Y (and maybe Z) is such that their participation requires a change in the structure of marriage, such that this new structure would work against the interests of children*. As Eve rightly suggests, the onus is on her side to convince me that SSM would work against the interests of children. I'm not persuaded, but the questions she raises - such as gender roles - are important and are brushed aside all too glibly. (If one can recognize that fatherlessness can have negative effects on children, the question of what effect single-sex parenting has on children follows logically - and deserves more than an anecdotal answer.)
*As, for example, I think polyamorous marriages obviously would (and serial marriages do).
As Eve rightly suggests, the onus is on her side to convince me that SSM would work against the interests of children.I think the onus is on the pro-SSM side to show that SSM is benign to children. Male-female marriage is a historical norm, SSM is not. Perhaps there is a reason. It's reckless to dismiss centuries of cross-cultural human experience and advocate radical social experimentation whose full consequences are unforseeable.
Posted by: Jonathan on September 30, 2003
Being of the conservative persuasion, I tend naturally toward your "it ain't broke, so leave it alone" view. And hmmm....upon reflection I do see how the quoted phrase could come across as pretty thoughtless and unintelligent. You could have had some fun with some analogies there.
But all change from tradition isn't "reckless" - after all, what could be more reckless and unnatural than the status of women in Western society? (No smarty-pants rejoinders to that allowed.) Certainly one should be cautious about messing with a fundamental social institution; we've already seen what harm can come from relaxing expectations in some directions. But we can't assume that SSM will of course be harmful because, for example, policies and attitudes that effectively encourage single-motherhood are harmful. I'm just not persuaded of an illimitable harm to society flowing from allowing same-sex couples to form pair-bond families. I say "pair-bond" advisedly, because I do think the "anything makes a family" position is a flight from reality. I think there is a difference between a single-sex couple who says "we'll follow the time-honored rules for this institution" and folks who run around demanding that we all accept, respect, and grant the privileges of marriage to whatever arrangements they've happened to arrange.
But I agree absolutely that it's not something that should be changed with little thought - fundamental social institutions are, after all, fundamental social institutions. I also realize that I'm coming across as sitting and writing this comment with a blank stare, a slack jaw, and a lot of "duuuh, on the other hand" statements. Obviously, I'm still thinking this one through.
Posted by: Moira on October 02, 2003
Maybe legally recognized SSM would work out fine. I'm skeptical but I don't know. However, I don't see why some of the goals of SSM advocates (in particular, inheritance and shared health-insurance) couldn't be achieved via contracts and, perhaps, incremental liberalization, either by law or custom, of current practice in these areas.
My main objection to SSM comes from my conjecture that expanding the definition of marriage would devalue marriage, particularly as the proposed expansion encompasses practices that many people find objectionable. I don't think superficial fairness is sufficient justification for such a high-stakes experiment, which would be difficult to undo if it failed.
Our society is more tolerant than ever, which is why it's possible even to have a public debate about formalizing SSM. We could modernize health-insurance rules and maybe a few other practices but otherwise should leave things (and people) alone. Why ask for trouble by forcing this issue? (Some SSM proponents seem to want to stir up trouble, but I think that's another reason not to give them what they want.)
Posted by: Jonathan on October 02, 2003