Gay Rights and the Obama Legacy
As someone who is both broadly supportive of the Republican Party and extending marriage rights to same-sex couples, I’m in an obvious bind. Barack Obama has now staked out a remarkable position on the issue, as Pete Wehner notes.
On a substantive level: Senator Obama now opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton; the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and an effort by the citizens of California to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is obviously destructive. Good riddance. The California marriage tangle is more complex than Wehner allows — a legislative majority for same-sex marriage is not out of reach — but I see his point. As for the Defense of Marriage Act, I do wonder about how the marriage debate will evolve over time: eventually there will be a struggle for Social Security benefits, tax benefits, etc., that will last until long after, say, a third of states legalize same-sex marriage.
This reminds me of Noam Scheiber’s observation concerning Obama’s discomfort with Sister Souljah politics. So as of now, Obama has staked out a strongly Sullivanian position, yet my understanding is that he personally opposes same-sex marriage. I’d be eager to know why — does this parallel his trade rhetoric, where things get amplified and overheated in the course of a campaign?
Or Obama, like many on the secular French left, oppose same-sex marriage because it is an affront to the complementarity of the sexes? The following is from Chris Caldwell’s brilliant essay on the subject:They may have been following the “differentialism” (an important strain of French feminism) associated with the philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, who happens to be Mr. Jospin’s wife. Ms. Agacinski has argued that the human condition cannot be understood in any universal way without reference to both sexes . This argument has been a mighty tool for left-wing reforms. It provided the intellectual underpinnings for mandating sexual parity in French legislative elections. Today, it provides the intellectual underpinnings for arguing that a marriage that lacks either a man or a woman is no marriage at all.
It is also possible that Obama’s objections to same-sex marriage are rooted in his Christian beliefs. Yet couldn’t he then support civil marriage for gays and lesbians? If not, isn’t he trying to enshrine Christian ethics in the law? And isn’t that something liberals and progressives adamantly oppose?
Somehow I don’t think the good folks at the American Constitution Society are going to be too exercised by this, but these are questions worth asking.
P.S. Julian Sanchez squares the circle, sort of. Like Julian, I think Obama’s position is perfectly coherent. Yet I am curious as to what animates his opposition to same-sex marriage.
I have no idea about Obama, but I favor ending “don’t ask/don’t tell” and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act – and yet I’m critical of the idea of same-sex marriage for reasons not dissimilar to those of Mme. Agacinski (assuming I understand them). So maybe?
— Noah Millman · Jul 1, 05:28 PM · #
“…eventually there will be a struggle for Social Security benefits, tax benefits, etc., that will last until long after, say, a third of states legalize same-sex marriage.”
I was riding in the my favorite lesbian couples the other day (geez, that sounds like the beginning to a joke), and, being Californians, we were discussing the recent contretemps over gay marriage in our state. All four women agreed that all they really wanted was the same legal benefits my wife and I get for our relationship.
— James F. Elliott · Jul 1, 05:33 PM · #
…I was riding IN THE CAR WITH my favorite… A preview function still can’t get me to proofread.
— James F. Elliott · Jul 1, 05:34 PM · #
It seems to me that what you call the secular argument against gay marriage is actually the argument advanced by many Christians – that marriage reflects the complementarity of man and woman. Some might argue that gay marriage lends state sanction to sodomy, and others might argue that God instituted marriage as between a man and a woman, but most reasoned arguments I’ve heard (coming from a Catholic perspective) do use the complementarity principle, which was articulated by John Paul II in his theology of the body.
— Zak · Jul 1, 06:33 PM · #
I think what you’re seeing here is the fundamental compromise the left has made on the gay marriage issue.
Marriage is a fundamentally religious concept. Marriages are traditionally solemnized in a religious ceremony at a religious place (or, at the least, according to a ritual dictated by religious sensibility). Moreover, each religion takes a different approach to marriage and how it’s defined (sometimes the differences are relatively subtle, sometimes rather radical).
From that premise, it seems to me that a liberal who was committed to secular government and social equality would—if he had his druthers—approach the gay marriage debate from a different angle. The natural argument is not that justice demands gay couples should be included in a religious institution that was never before open to them. Rather, it is that marriage, as a fundamentally religious concept, has no place in secular government: Render unto God what is God’s and let the churches, mosques, temples, etc. decide what marriage is and what it is not. But when it comes time to render unto Caesar, leave marriage out of it completely, and define instead a secular domestic partnership that better conforms to our ideas about political equality (and have that exclusively cover tax filings and hospital visits and intestacy and whatnot).
The problem with this argument is that (1) it’s a bit more complex, and (2) it seems too radical to be politically salient. Rather than face these problems, liberals have compromised: They have decided to push for a state definition of a religious concept that embraces secular ideas of equal political rights. That’s awkward, but in ways it is easier to advocate and harder to attack.
It’s this compromise, I think, that accounts for the dissonance in how religious liberals, like Barack Obama, talk about the issue. His own definition of marriage and his understanding of the social order is presumably drawn from his Christian faith. Nevertheless, he may not want the government to adopt his definition; he may instead want the government to adhere to a secular, non-religious understanding—one that does not necessarily inform his own personal life, but that he deems more congenial to the constitution or enlightenment principles or fairness or what have you.
— southpaw · Jul 1, 08:03 PM · #
southpaw: I’d bet marriage antedates religion, just as I’d bet religion antedates government. Which doesn’t stop either government or religion from shaping marriage as a social institution, but does call into question a claim that marriage is “fundamentally” a religious concept. Indeed, unless you define either marriage or religion in non-obvious ways, I think the claim that marriage is fundamentally religious in nature would make little sense to anyone who is not him- or herself deeply religious in outlook.
And, actually, there are Christians who would question whether marriage is properly a sacrament, and in Judaism and Islam it’s a pretty purely contractual matter with belated “spiritual” window-dressing.
— Noah Millman · Jul 1, 08:33 PM · #
Noah, you may well be right. I don’t claim to know much about the history of marriage, so “fundamentally” was the wrong word to use. What I was trying to get across, ineloquently, is that (from my perspective) marriage as it currently exists is much more bound up with religion than with the state. Also, I am under the impression that the objections to gay marriage find a good deal of their support in religious texts and teachings. As such, I think it’s fair to say that propounding a definition of marriage is, to a liberal, an odd project for a secular government that attempts to avoid entanglement with religion. All of which is why, I think, one’s personal views of what marriage means might reasonably differ from one’s views of what government policy respecting marriage should be.
— southpaw · Jul 1, 09:08 PM · #
southpaw: you were perfectly eloquent; I just didn’t agree with you. And while I agree with you as a matter of fact that, in America, “objections to gay marriage find a good deal of their support in religious texts and teachings” that might say more about the changing meaning of religion, and how religion can be used to win arguments in modern American political discourse, than with the essential relationship between religion and marriage.
What I think is the case is that marriage is a “thick” concept, not readily reducible to the liberal buildingblocks of rights, utility, consent, etc. Ditto “the family.” So liberals who ascribe to a “thin” liberal state – one that disclaims any adherence to fundamental values – have a very hard time justifying the existence of the family as an institution. (This difficulty goes all the way back to Locke, by the way – it’s not a particular problem of contemporary American liberalism but a problem of liberalism as such.)
Liberals who are concerned about creeping religious tyranny have a particular penchant for a “thin” conception of the liberal state. But I think both the fear and the remedy are misguided; I prefer my liberalism thicker, but also less pure. I have a running argument with Damon Linker, one such adherent of a “thin” liberal state, and I come at him from both sides: liberalism needs to have more of a formal place for illiberal values, but it also needs to be robust in defending fundamental liberal values, and not just claim that liberalism is neutral and values are a private matter. But this deserves another post.
In any event: the best evidence that your notion is wrong is precisely those French leftists, who come to the proposition that same-sex marriage is a misnomer from an entirely secular place. They go there because they believe in a much thicker liberal state, one with substantial content and not merely form – they get there from their notion of what republican values are and ought to be, not from religious premises.
I agree that “one’s personal views of what marriage means might reasonably differ from one’s views of what government policy respecting marriage should be.” But I don’t see why one would have to take that position simply because one does have specifical personal views about what marriage means.
— Noah Millman · Jul 1, 09:40 PM · #
I would like some of you smart people to comment on what would be the state’s interest in regulating relationships between pairs (or triples etc) of non-gender differentiated couples. Instead of making up “rights” and talking about religion, can anyone talk public policy? Why should the state recognize, let alone care about, the fact that two people are committed to living together? I have two aunts that live together in a stable, committed, loving relationship. Do they have a “right” to a tax cut? Why? Or why not? Because they do not have sex with each other? Why should society care?
Of course, I do believe that society does have an interest in encouraging men and women to get together (in order to increase the chances of reproducing itself, even though of course not all heterosexuak marriages will be fertile).
— carlo · Jul 1, 10:37 PM · #
Noah,
I’ve been looking around for more explanation of the French leftists’ position on this, and I’m afraid I haven’t found anything that I can confidently read. So you have the better of me.
From that stance of relative ignorance, I guess I don’t see the connection. I would happily concede that “the human condition cannot be understood in any universal way without reference to both sexes.” Totally agree. But what does that have to do with whether the government should set out the definition of marriage? I don’t look to the state for my understanding of the human condition.
I would take issue with your notion that “liberals who ascribe to a “thin” liberal state – one that disclaims any adherence to fundamental values – have a very hard time justifying the existence of the family as an institution.” I tend to meander between liberal and libertarian in my views of the role of the state (both presumably “thin” conceptions of the state), but in neither mode have I had any difficulty justifying the existence of the family. The family is an enduring social institution that — except in cases of the most extreme tyranny — does not live and die with the state. As you said in your first response to me, “marriage” probably predates both religion and government. People were forming monogamous relationships and raising children long before Leviathan came along to tell them how to do it.
Moreover, I think it’s a touch unfair to suggest that liberals think the state disclaims any adherence to fundamental values. I think the state adheres (imperfectly) to the values (fundamental to me) of individual autonomy, political equality, and social freedom, among others. That’s a side issue, and perhaps I’m misunderstanding either you or which side of the centralist/non-centralist fence we’re on.
Another concession I’d happily make is that marriage is a “thick” concept. But I think that all the thickness, so to speak, exists outside the state’s licensing scheme. When you marry someone you make a specific ethical commitment to that person (and, depending on your beliefs, to God). You also file some papers with the state that govern the handling and disposition of your property, your interactions with governmental bodies, and various other rather relatively dry legal concepts. The filing of the papers is—to me—a morally insignificant formality that exists quite apart from your real marriage, which derives its meaning from your relationship with your spouse, your children, the community, and (perhaps) with God. Is your idea that, aside from stamping the paperwork, the imprimatur of the state accomplishes something else that’s necessary to make marriage a morally weighty concept?
— southpaw · Jul 1, 10:41 PM · #
southpaw:
if I may interject, it seems to me that the implicit philosophical assumption behind the whole gay marriage movement is that “marriage,” being construed as the recognition of a relationship by the state, has no intrinsic reality apart from this recognition. This is why I was asking about a public policy angle: because in reality state recognition of relationships is a formality without any moral significance, as you correctly pointed out.
Let me quote Mr. Milman from a previous post:
“liberals who ascribe to a “thin” liberal state … have a very hard time justifying the existence of the family as an institution”
It seems to me that this sentence only makes logical sense in the context of a complete Hegelian identification of the word “institution” with “what he state recognizes.” As if the family had to be “justified” by the state in order to be an institution!
— carlo · Jul 1, 11:15 PM · #
carlo, I think that’s pretty much right. I’m a little wary of the idea that state recognition has no moral significance. If you mean—as I think you do—that state recognition of a specific marriage doesn’t impart any extra moral significance to the relationship, then I’d agree. (If you mean, alternatively, that affording citizens equal status under the law by recognizing gay marriages in toto has no moral significance, I’d object to that.)
From a public policy perspective, I there are a number of practical efficiencies that can flow from some sort of state recognition for gay couples (joint tax returns, mutual adoption, hospital visitation, pensions/employee benefits, intestacy, division of property when the relationship breaks down, etc.). Once you have something like civil unions, that all drops away, and I think the only remaining rationale becomes political equality and the public policy argument gets a little flaky: it’s administratively easier not to have two classes of citizens, you don’t need to come up with a whole new corpus of law to deal with the freshly invented status of “civil union,” the issue will have some hope of political settlement, etc.
— southpaw · Jul 2, 12:36 AM · #
Julian Sanchez has a characteristically brilliant take on how to reconcile Obama’s positions.
— southpaw · Jul 2, 12:57 AM · #
Where, besides in his career promotional literature, is there evidence that Obama has “Christian faith”?
Isn’t the simplest explanation that Obama assumes that taking a clear stand on gay marriage, one way or the other, might hurt his chances of getting elected President, so he doesn’t?
— Steve Sailer · Jul 2, 02:25 AM · #
While Obama has a new “position” on gay rights, his actions don’t truly mirror it. Obama sought the allegiance of the ex-gay movement, specifically African American pastors to secure his following in black churches, and for the entire past year held just one interview with gay-owned press. He has never appeared remotely comfortable when discussing gay issues during debates in the democratic primary. He can talk unity, but until he truly addresses his failings in representing the queer community, or at least holding a spot at the table, I will remain a skeptic. At least Hillary marched in pride parades, made herself available to gay press, and has consistently been a strong supporter of gay issues. A sad, sad situation that neither presidential candidate can be trusted with gay rights…
— PDXEric · Jul 2, 02:43 AM · #
Where, besides in his career promotional literature, is there evidence that Obama has “Christian faith”?
Well, when you put it that way, what’s the evidence that I do?
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 2, 12:43 PM · #
carlo: you’re right that I was using the word “institution” that way – I could probably have chosen a better word. But I want to be clear: I don’t subscribe to the notion that state recognition is necessary to confer value. But I also don’t subscribe to the notion that the state’s recognition is meaningless, nor to the notion that there is something wrong with the state taking sides in questions of value. (I’m trying to cut back on my subscriptions.)
Here’s another try at what I’m getting at:
A thin conception of the liberal state is one where the state makes it possible for its citizens to pursue “happiness” as they see fit, on the condition that they don’t get in the way of other citizens’ similar efforts, and otherwise let people be. Citizens can hold any values they like – even profoundly illiberal ones – so long as they accept the liberal “bargain” that prevents them from using state power to impose these values on other citizens.
A thicker conception of the liberal state holds that there is a liberal conception of the good life, and a liberal roster of virtues, and that a liberal state should, to some degree, embody and promote these. Citizens should be curious about the world, predominantly empiricist in their outlook on it, believers in and supporters of progress, and both feel and act on a sense of responsibility towards their fellow citizens. A thicker liberal state would say that, no, it’s not OK for the citizenry to hold predominantly illiberal values – to be inward-looking and incurious, oppose progress, or promote the notion that obligations to a family or other sub-group (race, clan, religious body, secret society) trump one’s obligations to the republic as a whole.
Support for gay marriage could be justified on either thin or thick grounds – either because the state has no business telling people which marital arrangements are acceptable, or because the state should actively try to change people’s conceptions of marriage to accommodate committed same-sex couples. When southpaw said that, really, the state has no business being involved in marriage at all, he was making an extreme version of the thin-state argument – recognizing gay marriage is a compromise, because the pure position would be for the state to have nothing at all to say about marriage or cohabitation. My point in response was that justifying this position on the grounds that marriage is fundamentally religious is not really tenable; rather, this position rests on the proposition that the state has no business embodying or promoting fundamental values of any kind, religious or otherwise. This is a defensible position, but I think it has serious problems, and that most people who claim they hold it don’t really do so upon reflection. In any event, I don’t accept it.
The thick justification for gay marriage is more interesting to me, and one I might ultimately find persuasive, though I don’t now. In any event, I certainly agree that committed gay couples – particularly gay couples raising children – present a very strong claim for many if not all of the “incidences” of marriage granted by the state, which is a good enough reason in my mind to repeal DOMA.
I should stress as well that nobody I know holds a purely thin or thick conception of the liberal state; it’s more like a continuum. My own preferences are somewhere in the middle; I’m glad we don’t have universal conscription, but I also think the public schools should do more to promote active citizenship; I have no problem with public money going to faith-based groups that provide services the state wants provided, but I’m extremely opposed to teaching creationism – not primarily because it involves entanglement with religion, but because it is a corruption of science, and I believe the state should promote knowledge and appreciation of science as a fundamental value; and so forth. I want a liberal state that lets people live their lives, but also promotes certain liberal values I think need to be promoted, and also provides formal space for illiberal virtues and institutions that promote them, out of the humble recognition that liberalism isn’t a total theory, and is, to some extent, parasitic on deeper, illiberal commitments (this, to my mind, is the most coherent justification for a strong commitment to freedom of religion).
— Noah Millman · Jul 2, 01:23 PM · #
Where, besides in his career promotional literature, is there evidence that Obama has “Christian faith”?
“Well, when you put it that way, what’s the evidence that I do?”
I don’t know. Did you write ten pages in your autobiography about how you joined a politically radical church to find a power base and because it finally made you feel white enough? Did you then write 150 more pages of your autobiography without mention anything religious at all? If you did, then you and Obama are on the same page.
— Steve Sailer · Jul 2, 06:24 PM · #
Well, Steve, I haven’t actually written an autobiography, but when I do I’ll make sure to do a comparative study between me and BO. . . .
You know perfectly well that Obama doesn’t say the things you claim he says — that stuff about “making him feel white enough” is just what you think he means, in his heart of hearts. He says he’s a Christian; you don’t believe him. It’s as simple as that. And maybe you’re right. But then, anybody who claims to be a Christian could be lying about it too — that’s my point. Me, I don’t claim to be a mind-reader. I’m happy to accept Obama’s conversion story at face value and then move on to what I think are the far more germane questions, the ones about his policies and his likely performance if he gets elected President. Guessing-games about religious sincerity are a waste of everyone’s time.
— Alan Jacobs · Jul 2, 07:07 PM · #
Okay, Noah. We seem to have reduced the argument to the point that, roughly speaking, (1) if sanctioning a state definition of marriage is promoting a strictly secular virtue, I might be persuaded to agree with you, and (2) if the definition of marriage is irreducibly religious in nature, you might be persuaded to agree with me. I hope that’s a fair representation.
I’m sticking to my guns, and clinging to my religion, mainly for empirical reasons:
Item: Each major religion sees fit to set out its own elaborate rules for marriage . . . who may enter into it, in what numbers, how it may be dissolved, the rights and duties of the spouses, etc. There are large differences in these rules from religion to religion.
Item: Most marriages, even marriages of non-religious or superficially religious people (pace what you said earlier), are solemnized in a house of worship and/or before a clerical authority.
Item: I observe, as I said before, that the most vocal opponents of gay marriage appear to be religiously motivated.
All of that suggests to me that marriage is a topic sufficiently entangled with religion, whether “fundamentally” or not, that a secular government should steer well clear of it. This is not to say that marriage does not have secular elements or secular benefits; that is undoubtedly the case. Missionary work has similar secular virtues, but I don’t want my government engaging in it.
And for the record, what I’m hoping for with marriage is precisely the sort of dualistic system we have with education—one that divides the dogmatic elements from the empirically rigorous. It’s not some anarcho-capitalist vision dystopia in which everyone runs around willy-nilly forming 7-way marriages that also include two goats and comfy chair. On the contrary: You’d have your marriage in the church, and you’d file domestic partnership papers with the state to control your property. Is that so “extreme”?
— southpaw · Jul 2, 09:07 PM · #
Alan, have you read Obama’s 1995 autobiography? If so, then please tell me the page where he says he’s a Christian.
— Steve Sailer · Jul 3, 10:44 AM · #
Here are the 6000 words that Obama wrote about Wright and Trinity in 1995:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-obama-wrote-about-wright-in-1995.html
— Steve Sailer · Jul 3, 10:48 AM · #
Has anyone here considered the issue of whether or not there may be other solid, secular arguments against not merely homosexual marriage, but against any governmental parity between homosexual unions and heterosexual marriages at all?
I have heard it presented, quite convincingly, that heterosexual marriages are primarily responsible for both transmitting the essential mores of a society to the next generation, and for sustaining a reproduction rate that ensures that the next generation is sufficient to allow economic vitality. If this is so, then it seems reasonable that the government is justified in according special privileges to that arrangement, whether in property rights, tax benefits, or otherwise, in its duty as a promoter of the general welfare.
Now, granted, in such a secular argument, it would be valid to weigh this interest against a (hypothetical, at least) government interest in fostering equality for its citizens. But I don’t see too many people who argue for governmental approval of same-sex couplings (“marriage” or otherwise) recognizing the vital importance of heterosexual marriage.
And if someone wishes to reply that public policy has no effect on the prevalence of productive marriages, then I believe the empirical evidence of Europe weighs against that position.
This would be a “thick” argument against homosexual marriage, that the State does have an interest in encouraging certain social structures among its citizens, but that that interest mitigates against equal recognition of homosexual couples rather than for it.
— Ethan C. · Jul 4, 05:32 AM · #