A Radical or Marginal Change?
The excellent blogger Rod Dreher writes:
I understand the case for same-sex marriage, though I don’t agree with it, but look, if you’re reduced to having to tell the public that they have no right to be consulted about the radical redefinition of a bedrock social and cultural institution, then you have a big, big problem.
Since he’s grappled many times with arguments for and against gay marriage, I haven’t any desire to rehash the whole debate, but I do want to challenge Rod on one small aspect of how he characterizes this issue: Would the legalization of gay marriage really be a “radical redefinition” of the social and cultural institution? Maybe same sex marriage is a radical departure from marriage as understood by orthodox Christians, or people for whom it is primarily a procreative union.
But I submit that a majority of Americans subscribe to a definition that more closely resembles the following: Marriage is the union of people who fall in love with one another, decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and commit to do so monogamously. The definition I’ve offered isn’t merely more commonly accepted among Americans than whatever Rod Dreher would describe, it is perfectly consistent with marriage laws as now written.
Expanding marriage to include gay people doesn’t radically redefine the understanding of marriage that prevails in our culture. As Rod himself writes, “heterosexual America has already conceded the philosophical grounds on which traditional marriage was based.” It is therefore specious for opponents of same sex marriage to invoke as an argument the proposition that “it’s dangerous to radically redefine the status quo.”
Obviously, Rod has other arguments to offer against same sex marriage, but if they want to remain on intellectually solid ground, he and other opponents of same sex marriage must stop using that particular argument. Same sex marriage may be an advantageous or disadvantageous change in our society’s understanding of marriage — I believe it is the former — but it is most definitely a marginal change that flows logically from the institution’s prior evolution, not a radical change.
but it is most definitely a marginal change that flows logically from the institution’s prior evolution, not a radical change.
It’s hard to know how you derive confidence about this. The “logic” of institutions is non-obvious. Does polygamy counts as a radical or a marginal change? Is polygamy more radical than gay marriage? I don’t even know how to answer that question — because there’s not enough prior agreement on the ‘logic’ of marriage.
The only way I can think to answer the question in a way that isn’t methodologically question-begging is by some variety of appeal to what people actually think. If we’re just trying to understand how big a change it is, we could simply ask “would this to the institution have been considered really weird and out-there by 70% of Americans 20 years ago?” I suspect both polygamy and gay marriage would fit that bill. If we’re trying to understand what people now think about how gay marriage logically flows from marriage we could ask them. It’s not great support of the “everyone thinks gay marriage follows logically from marriage” argument that liberal presidential candidates who believe in gay marriage consider explicit endorsement too great a political risk.
Obviously homosexuality has been significantly mainstreamed in the past 20 years (something I endorse, as I endorse gay marriage). But that mainstreaming was a big change. And gay marriage is likewise a big change. It’s a big change I support, but I don’t think we get anywhere by pretending that the only “intellectually solid ground” is minimizing the magnitude of that change.
— Ben A · Nov 4, 04:54 PM · #
Does polygamy counts as a radical or a marginal change? Is polygamy more radical than gay marriage?
You’ve got this backward. In ancient times, polygamy was a commonly accepted form of marriage, e.g. Kings David and Solomon, and it was changed to being outlawed, in the US at least, as a not so subtle attempt to discriminate against a particular religious minority. So the real questions are the opposite: Was monogamy a radical or a marginal change? Was monogamy more radical than gay marriage? The answers, for those who are curious, are Marginal and Yes.
— Bo · Nov 4, 05:14 PM · #
I think there’s two different dimensions in play.
Changing the letter of the law may not represent a radical departure from the current cultural understanding of marriage. Rather, from this perspective, it cements into the letter of the law this emerging understanding of marriage.
And I’m not certain this emerging understanding is as pervasive as Conor makes it out to be. Among his generational and demographic cohort, sure. But beyond that, marriage is culturally linked very deeply with procreation.
And while younger people may accept the new definition, don’t the opionions of older people still count? Isn’t it possible that they retain their understanding of marriage not because of outmoded bigotry, but from a deep experience and understanding?
— JohnMcG · Nov 4, 05:29 PM · #
So, being of a certain age — and admitting this is one of the many reasons I maintain a veneer of anonymity — I really couldn’t not watch the V reboot, about which I have many, many reservations.
But the lizaard/human romance seems sort of complicated. I mean, if, when a lizard loves a woman (cue Percy Sledge), it’s a pure and beautiful love of the soul based on an admiration of the intellect since after all I’d assume the chick hasn’t got, what to the lizard’s “lizard brain,” is “it,” (wheras the lizard is in human guise and so might indeed have, for our lizard brains, “it,” as I can certainly confirm that some seem to) then isn’t it as likely that a lizard/human matchup be same-sex as not? If so, are all lizards lizard-hetero, human-bi? Do the lizard dudes have two penises?
That would be radical.
— Sanjay · Nov 4, 05:31 PM · #
You’re right. And Rod knows it. Most conservatives don’t realize they’re fighting the last war, but Dreher does. His anti-SSM posts get the links, but his musings on the ‘Benedict Option’ and religious liberty where traditionalists can live free of not only gay marriage, but serial monogamy etc are where his heart lies.
— jacobus · Nov 4, 05:35 PM · #
A majority of Americans obviously don’t define marriage in that way (“two people decide they’re in love with each other”); and there have been so many articles and books written about how foundational heterosexual marriage is to various aspects of culture/society that I don’t even see how you COULD say otherwise, especially as a “conserative”
— paul h. · Nov 4, 05:36 PM · #
To put it another way, one way of thinking about this is that it may be the case that the cultural understanding of marriage has evolved to Conor’s definition, in particular among cultural elites, but most Americans did not sign off on it.
The SSM referenda are an opportunity for them to do so, and they are declining.
Now, maybe this is hypocritical when their behavior in their own marriages is examined, and it is likely the case that a good part of opposition to SSM is simple anti-gay bigotry.
It would be interesting if it were possible to put Conor’s definition of marriage and a more traditional one up for a vote without people knowing how their answer would impact the SSM debate.
— JohnMcG · Nov 4, 05:51 PM · #
Paul H,
Can you elaborate? I’m curious about what you regard as wrong about my assertion that most Americans define marriage as “two people fall in love with one another…”
That seems an obvious and pervasive definition to me — one you’ll find, for example, in most every single mainstream movie, television show, novel, and song about love and marriage. Can you say the same for the procreative definition?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Nov 4, 05:59 PM · #
another way to put it is to think not in terms of the status quo ante c 1990, but in terms of the politically viable prospective possibilities. to my mind these are basically a) civil unions or b) full-blown SSM. in this sense the question is not whether SSM is a radical change from the status quo but whether it is more or less radical than civil unions. i’m of the opinion that institutionalizing marriage lite is a more radical change than extending marriage (with as many of the legal and cultural connotations intact as is possible) to homosexuals. therefore a Burkean should reluctantly favor rapid adoption of SSM since the alternative is civil unions, which is more radical and probably more destructive to the institution of marriage.
— gabriel · Nov 4, 06:12 PM · #
Conor — I have read you long enough to believe that you are arguing in good faith. But this is sophistry, and it is frustrating that you do not see it. “Two people fall in love with one another”? You really think that’s the way most Americans define marriage? Is that the way your grandparents define marriage? Moreover, do you really think the standard for measuring whether or not gay marriage is “radical” should be something like: “whether or not Conor Friedersdorf thinks the WORDING of the definition of marriage is broad enough to include gay marriage without having to change the definition?”
I could make a counter-argument in precisely the same form as you do, but modify your made-up definition as follows: “a man and a woman fall in love with one another and decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together….” Except mine has the advantage of more closely describing how Americans have actually gotten married over the past 400 years (and this is setting aside the religious norms informing a practice that is for most people, a spiritual act. For the record, I think this is exactly how my mother explained marriage to me when I was a child in the mid-80s).
My definition seems obvious and pervasive TO ME. Does that make it right? Listen, I think gay people should be probably be able to get married — or maybe we should just get rid of civil marriage altogether. But your argument is really shabby. It’s entirely based on your personal experience and observations about culture, and then, to build on your house of cards, you argue that the one-sentence summary you provide of the beliefs and practices of a 300 million diverse people can be parsed like some sort of biblical exegesis. I’d be willing to bet that Rod Dreher has had different experiences and made different observations, and this argument doesn’t really provide you with the basis for a response, other than “let’s do a poll.”
— Jay Daniel · Nov 4, 06:29 PM · #
That seems an obvious and pervasive definition to me — one you’ll find, for example, in most every single mainstream movie, television show, novel, and song about love and marriage
That’s exactly the point — who makes mainstream movies, TV shows, novels, songs about love and marriage, etc.?
Cultural elites, that’s who.
Not the people who are showing up to vote in these elections.
If we are going to say the the culture that is represented in popular entertainment is what must be reflected in the law, then the result will be an escalation of the culture war. Every positive representation of what some might consider immoral will have to be vigorously opposed. Otherwise, it will be precedent for changing everybody’s rules.
— JohnMcG · Nov 4, 06:33 PM · #
There’s an abstract/concrete dimension here. Conor appears to have an abstract definition of marriage (“Two people fall in love…”) while I would guess that Dreher — possibly even subconsciously — relates to marriage as a man, a woman, their children, their house, the dinner parties they throw, etc.
— S · Nov 4, 06:44 PM · #
Jay Daniel,
I don’t think the ‘two people…’ wording would have sounded strange to my grandparents, simply because they would have assumed the ‘two people’ in question could only be a heterosexual couple. The point is that explicitly removing the restriction to ‘a man and a woman’ would indeed be a shift, just not a ‘radical’ shift, since the culturally dominant definition already fails to include the procreative function of the union.
— matt · Nov 4, 06:50 PM · #
“Is polygamy more radical than gay marriage?”
If you’re are concerned about the effect of legalization on society, in particular on existing marriages, the obvious answer seems to be: “Yes!”
To see this, imagine that you are a spouse in a heterosexual marriage and one day it is legal for your husband/wife to divorce you in order to marry another man/woman. My opinion is that, for the vast majority of married couples, this would not be a threat to the marriage or seen as a potential future issue, in large part because most people in heterosexual marriages are not gay and their partners don’t believe that they are gay.
Now, suppose it were suddenly legal for your spouse to add another spouse of the opposite sex to your existing marriage. This potentially affects every marriage and could be seen as an issue by anyone who has concerns about their spouse’s fidelity or who thinks that their spouse is tiring of them but is sticking around because they want to avoid a messy divorce, etc. This doesn’t even mention possible effects on any children the couple may have.
— Ratufa · Nov 4, 06:51 PM · #
“I’m curious about what you regard as wrong about my assertion that most Americans define marriage as “two people fall in love with one another…”
That seems an obvious and pervasive definition to me — one you’ll find, for example, in most every single mainstream movie, television show, novel, and song about love and marriage.”
Look, I certainly don’t think “what most people think” is normative. But the obvious and pervasive definition on exhibit in mainstream movies, television shows, novels, and songs about love and marriage is that marriage is a certain kind of relationship between a man and a woman.
— John 4 · Nov 4, 06:55 PM · #
but it is most definitely a marginal change that flows logically from the institution’s prior evolution, not a radical change.
It’s a radical change even from your own definition, which includes “and commit to do so monogamously.” As has been understood for decades, the homosexual (at least gay male) definition of monogamy does not entail sexual exclusivity. That this fact is dismissed or swept under the rug is not surprising since it would make the cause of SSM even more difficult to achieve. But it’s been well established and used to be the justifying reason why gays weren’t interested in marriage.
If this is an important component of your definition then you need to ask what happens when the majority of gay men refuse to include this in their own definition of “marriage.”
— Joe Carter · Nov 4, 07:00 PM · #
Bo: Was monogamy a radical or a marginal change? Was monogamy more radical than gay marriage? The answers, for those who are curious, are Marginal and Yes.
That’s the best formualtion of that question I’ve ever seen.
JohnG: who makes mainstream movies, TV shows, novels, songs about love and marriage, etc.?
Do cultural elites include country musicians? Granted, country is more likely to extol the virtues of family, etc, but that’s not it’s default.
Jay: I could make a counter-argument in precisely the same form as you do, but modify your made-up definition as follows: “a man and a woman fall in love with one another and decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together….”
Think think Jay’s actually correct here, though I’d also posit that this is a huge change from previous norms, where romantic love was a second-tier priority. Now, given that change, I think it’s a very reasonable question to ask why society shouldn’t also recognize gay couples who love each other and want to commit. The distance really isn’t that great.
— Tom Meyer · Nov 4, 07:01 PM · #
Regarding Conor’s question about media, I should think that the procreative element of marriage was obvious in media treatments. The sequel to the romcom about falling in love is the sitcom about having the first baby, culminating with Dad looking at his suspiciously unbloody newborn for the first time and realizing that It Was All Worth It. It remains widely assumed that marriage leads to children, and the media reflect that. In fact, I would argue that the agitation of gay couples for adoption rights represents the infiltration of this assumption even into queer communities themselves, who see the addition of a child as the final ratification of their status as real families.
Nonetheless, it is true that the significance of this second act has been diminishing relative to the first act, and lots of people now feel comfortable leaving it out and being permanently childless.
— JS Bangs · Nov 4, 07:09 PM · #
“As has been understood for decades, the homosexual (at least gay male) definition of monogamy does not entail sexual exclusivity.”
Bull. Shit. Do you even know any gay couples? Most of the ones I know have managed to stay together — and be sexually exclusive — longer than my parents.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Nov 4, 07:54 PM · #
Conor: The “two people” formulation breaks down when the “two people” in question happen to be brothers or sisters of father and daughter. So, no, your definition is not adequate.
— Lasorda · Nov 4, 08:08 PM · #
Adequate or no, Conor’s definition is entirely normative.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Nov 4, 08:29 PM · #
Erik — it may be normative. But Conor doesn’t want it to be normative; he wants it to be purely descriptive so that it can carry water for his argument. If his formulation does not adequately describe American’s understanding and beliefs about marriage, his argument fails. Which is a good thing. There are better arguments for gay marriage than the circular reasoning employed by Conor here.
— Jay Daniel · Nov 4, 08:44 PM · #
Jay,
I think you misunderstand my argument — it applies perfectly well even if the common American understanding of marriage is, ““a man and a woman fall in love with one another and decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together….”
Whether one uses my initial wording or that revision, the same point holds — current cultural norms surrounding revolve around love, commitment and companionship, not procreation. Thus changing marriage to encompass unions based on love, commitment and companionship between gay men isn’t a radical change.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Nov 4, 09:17 PM · #
Erick: “Bull. Shit. Do you even know any gay couples? Most of the ones I know have managed to stay together — and be sexually exclusive — longer than my parents.”
Not to be rude, but that either says something about your parents or your knowledge of the subject.
Whenever I hear anyone talk about gay men being sexually “exclusive” it’s usually a sign that they don’t actually know many gay couples. Sure, you may find some older gay men who think its wrong to sleep around. But that is rare.
This used to be uncontroversial. It was widely known—and accepted—that sexual exclusivity was a heteronormative concept (and I’d probably agree) that doesn’t necessarily apply to gay men. Andrew Sullivan, for example, used to acknowledge this fact until it became politically inconvenient for him to do so.
— Joe Carter · Nov 4, 09:23 PM · #
It’s not clear that the heterosexual male definition of monogamy includes sexual exclusivity, either. Don’t you watch Mad Men? It hardly seems fair to hold homosexual couples to a perfect standard of fidelity that we don’t mandate for the straight ones. (After all, no matter how many straight marriages have ended in divorce for infidelity throughout history, we never considered terminating the right of heterosexual marriage in response.)
More importantly, though, the idea that gay people – millions of them – are participating in a conspiracy of silence to keep the straights from knowing what sluts they all are is pretty fucking stupid on its face. It’s nothing more than an indicator of how this entire debate is motivated by animus towards gays on the part of people like Dreher and Joe Carter.
— Chet · Nov 4, 10:03 PM · #
After all, no matter how many straight marriages have ended in divorce for infidelity throughout history, we never considered terminating the right of heterosexual marriage in response.
No, but we consider infidelity a valid reason to terminate a marriage.
— JohnMcG · Nov 4, 10:19 PM · #
Joe,
Is your position that an identity group’s aggregate rate of monogamous behavior is an appropriate factor to consider when deciding whether or not the state should grant them marriages? I ask because if so, I have a Slate pitch for you: “Deny Marriage to Movie Stars and Athletes.”
— Conor Friedersdorf · Nov 4, 10:27 PM · #
Conor — I understand the distinction you are making, but I think you are eliding the distinction between two positions: 1) the argument that the long-term cultural consensus has been that marriage is between a man and a woman (Rod’s argument) and 2) the argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation. I don’t see Rod Dreher arguing for 2) (although he may have in the past), and I don’t think your argument really addresses 1).
From a Burkean/Kirkian perspective, marriage can serve many purposes, and we probably do not even know all of the “purposes” of marriage. That’s the insight of organic conservativism that you seem to be rejecting here. Indeed, when you argue from conservative “purposes,” your language itself is not very conservative. Social institutions, from a conservative perspective, did not arise as some policymaker’s solution to serve a “purpose.” Marriage is not a social program for the government to tinker with as an idea someone thought up one day that addressed some societal need; it’s an ancient social institution that developed and survived over thousands of years in many different cultures. It may serve all sorts of functions that we don’t fully understand, and may not until it is gone.
— Jay Daniel · Nov 4, 10:29 PM · #
Conor: You say : “Thus changing marriage to encompass unions based on love, commitment and companionship between gay men isn’t a radical change.” The problem here is that you have offered nothing but a flimsy definition of marriage as proof of this statement. You are correct that to change “woman” to “man” or vice versa does not radically change your definition. But what does it change? I think that Rod (and I) argues that such a change is radical for many reasons outside the context of your narrow definition of marriage. See Jay above.
— Lasorda · Nov 4, 10:56 PM · #
Yes, but not all marriages, unfaithful or no, for an entire class of couples, as voters in Maine have just done.
Do you honestly not see the difference?
— Chet · Nov 4, 10:59 PM · #
I’m totally in favor of this “Deny Marriage to Movie Stars and Athletes” movement. Where do I sign?
— JS Bangs · Nov 4, 11:16 PM · #
Since the beginning of the Holocene, marriage has worn many faces and played many roles. Until very recently it was a way to quiet title in a vagina. Now it is about love and commitment, the ring and reception.
Nothing sacred, nothing constant. No reason the gays can’t play along with the rest of us.
— Diogenes Teufelsdröckh · Nov 4, 11:42 PM · #
I’ll lend you a slogan, Conor: “Gay marriage is traditional marriage.” (Actually, if someone told me that Andrew Sullivan had said that, I wouldn’t be surprised).
— Justin · Nov 5, 03:02 AM · #
Chet: “It’s not clear that the heterosexual male definition of monogamy includes sexual exclusivity, either.”
Bingo!
Man that was absolutely freaking perfect. Joe Carter needs a new ridiculous argument.
— Socrates · Nov 5, 04:55 AM · #
Men seek petty kingdoms. Women seek petty lives. Ideally.
— Ed Wood · Nov 5, 05:22 AM · #
Joe Carter:
I would like to confirm that in many Mediterranean cultures a heterosexual man, in order to be considered a real man, is never supposed to pass up a chance at sex with a woman. There is really no expectation of sexual fidelity for men, but for women there is. Songs on the radio and music videos I have seen in Italy, Turkey, and various countries, feature (often male, but occasionally female) singers who proudly sing about torrid adulterous affairs without a hint of conflict or guilt. Lyrics may be like “I sneak away from my wife to meet you / our exciting secret love” etc. or “I don’t love my wife, I love only you” etc. My married male Italian friends would casually invite me to go for prostitutes with them like you would invite someone to the cinema together (I am gay so I turned them down).
— Danilo · Nov 5, 08:59 AM · #
Rod Dreher is not an “excellent blogger,” he is a blogger who periodically and predictably says the same inflammatory things about gay people, knowing these comments will invite links (and page views, which is how he is paid by beliefnet) from A-list bloggers like Andrew Sullivan, who inexplicably remains infatuated with him even after linking the same tired attacks two dozen times.
I hope Rod is at least giving good kickbacks to those of you who make his second job possible by invariably taking the bait.
— j · Nov 5, 03:52 PM · #
“but it is most definitely a marginal change that flows logically from the institution’s prior evolution, not a radical change.”
I’m a strong supporter of gay marriage, but I have to say, (1) IMHO, this is where untrammeled reason gets you when you don’t apply experience, (2) does the fact that gay marriage has lost every referendum, everywhere, give you any doubt about “most definitely” part?
I mean, if marriage is a cultural institution, and if a majority of the members of the culture see gay marriage as a radical change, doesn’t that make it a radical change?
— J Mann · Nov 5, 05:09 PM · #
When very nearly a majority of that culture doesn’t see it as radical, is it really that radical? Try not to overstate the margin of these referenda. As many Americans support gay marriage as don’t. (I wonder how heterosexual marriage would survive a referendum? For some reason, though, the rights of straights to marry never seems to be on the ballot. Huh.)
It was only this decade that states still had laws against interracial marriage; only last month that a justice wouldn’t grant marriage licenses to such couples. The amount of backwards, bigoted cultural holdouts that stand against the equality of their fellows isn’t really indicative of the “radical-ness” of a proposition. The idea that all men actually were equal, and therefore you couldn’t own a person as though he or she were property, isn’t radical in any way based on the founding principles of this country. How long did it take to end slavery, though?
— Chet · Nov 5, 07:09 PM · #
“I submit that a majority of Americans subscribe to a definition that more closely resembles the following: Marriage is the union of people who fall in love with one another, decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and commit to do so monogamously.”
Then why has same-sex marriage been rejected by 31 out of 31 state referendums?
Why did it fail in Maine, a generally liberal state where it enjoyed a 2-to-1 funding advantage, high voter turnout, no Califorian minorities with backward views on marriage turning out for Obama, aggressive legal action against defenders of traditional marriage, and heavily favorable media coverage?
— SDG · Nov 5, 07:09 PM · #
Chet – sure, but the question isn’t whether gay marriage is a good idea (IMHO, yes), but whether it would be a radical change. (IMHO, also yes.)
You offer the example of slavery. I think the end of slavery was a radical change. Similarly, my guess is that many people who support gay marriage still think it’s a radical change.
— J Mann · Nov 5, 11:22 PM · #
Maybe we have a differing perspective on what constitutes a “radical change”. Personally, I think actual radical change is impossible in America. Ergo any change that actually occurs is not radical. The end of slavery hardly seems radical when one notes that a number of states entered the Union with slavery already illegal. Similarly, gay marriage can hardly be a “radical change” when it exists in so many different countries – and even different states.
But if the legalization of gay marriage is a radical change, so must be its opposite, as just happened in Maine (and as happened in California.) Why is it gay marriage advocates who bear the burden of accusations of “radical change”, when gay marriage opponents in those states are, by definition, every bit as radical?
— Chet · Nov 6, 12:31 AM · #
I live in one of those states (CT) where we legalized gay marriage, and it’s pretty marginal so far. Is there something I should be looking out for? Societal decline? Plagues? Dark horsemen? Fabulous interior design?
— Bo · Nov 6, 01:14 AM · #
Re: “a man and a woman fall in love with one another and decide they want to spend the rest of their lives together….”
You’re right…BUT: the real change, and the one that has made homosexuality acceptable and which is gradually making SSM a possibility, is the fact that we no longer differentiate between “man” and “woman”. Sexual egalitarianism has become the cultural norm and that means it’s impossible to formulate any rational and non-religious opposition to gay marriage (or to homosexuality in general) that doesn’t immediately run afoul of this basic cultural and ethical postulate.
Re: It was widely known—and accepted—that sexual exclusivity was a heteronormative concept (and I’d probably agree) that doesn’t necessarily apply to gay men.
Until divorce became possible and relatively easy for women to initiate sexual exclusivity was not enforced on men, period. Women were expected to come to the marriage bed as virgins, and to remain faithful to their husbands, but everyone winked at unmarried young men sowing their wild oats, and for much of history men who could afford to set up a mistress were not censured for doing so. Meanwhile lesser men were free to visit prostitutes in search of any sexual excitement they could not find at home. The promiscuity of gay men exists not because they are gay but because they are men. Also, the larger culture has become almost completely tolerant of both sexes sleeping around pre-marriage, (this ties in with the above about gender egalitarianism), so it is hardly fair to pick on gays who mostly cannot marry at all in this country, for having the same sort of fun their straight brothers and sisters enjoy befre tieing the knot.
Re: Sure, you may find some older gay men who think its wrong to sleep around. But that is rare.
Not at all. It’s about half and half (observation based on the fact that I am in fact gay, and know numerous gay couples). Yes, it becomes increasingly common as gay men age; but that’s perhaps a virtue of necessity as older guys, unless rich, have far fewer opportunities for hook-ups in the youth-adoring gay world (this of course applies to heterosexual people, both men and women, too). By the way, why do these discussons of SSM always focus on the behavior of gay men? Do lesbians not exist in the alternate universes some posters apparently inhabit?
— JPF · Nov 6, 02:51 AM · #
“But if the legalization of gay marriage is a radical change, so must be its opposite, as just happened in Maine (and as happened in California.) Why is it gay marriage advocates who bear the burden of accusations of “radical change”, when gay marriage opponents in those states are, by definition, every bit as radical?”
Can you go over that logic again? If a thing is radical, its opposite is by definition every bit as radical? E.g., legitimizing human sacrifice, affirming the unacceptability of human sacrifice, both equally radical?
— SDG · Nov 6, 12:18 PM · #
Seems simple enough to me. (“Affirming the unacceptability of human sacrifice” is not the opposite, btw.) It’s the distance from one configuration to the other that defines “radical-ness”; if it’s radical to go from a society with no human sacrifice to one that features it, then it’s equally as radical to go from a society full of human sacrifice to one where that’s not allowed.
Similarly, if “no-gay-marriage-to-gay-marriage” is a radical change, then “gay-marriage-to-no-gay-marriage” must also be a radical change. Indeed I can’t think of anything more radical, in practice, then to unwillingly divorce thousands of married couples by referendum.
— Chet · Nov 6, 04:44 PM · #
I think Chet’s right on two counts. (1) Yes, if a state recognizes gay marriage, then de-recognizes, I would call that “radical.” (2) Chet’s also right that the issue is somewhat semantic – it comes down to how you want to define “radical.”
Dreher’s original comment is:
Conor responds that in his view, the change isn’t radical, but I don’t think that gets him anywhere, because in the public’s view, it is.
IMHO, a better response would be to take Dreher’s point head-on, and say either:
(1) “Yes, a majority of people in even the most liberal states see this as such an unacceptable change that they are willing to vote it down, but the courts should cram it down their throats anyway, because it’s morally wrong for the majority to craft laws that apply in such an unequal and unjust way. The fact that gay marriage has lost 31 of 31 votes, including votes in California, Maine, and Vermont only shows that democracy isn’t working and the Constitution has to step in.” or
(2) “Yes, the fact that gay marriage can’t pass a popular vote in even the most liberal states in the country shows that we have a long way to go. It’s our moral duty to educate the public until they do vote for gay marriage, and here’s how I think we should go about it. In the meantime, here’s what we, as citizens, owe out gay friends and neighbors . . .”
IMHO, there’s an argument to be made for either (1) or (2), but Conor dodges the whole question by redefinining “radical,” then quibbling with it.
— J Mann · Nov 6, 05:16 PM · #
“if ‘no-gay-marriage-to-gay-marriage’ is a radical change, then ‘gay-marriage-to-no-gay-marriage’ must also be a radical change.”
The fallacy is in your binary categories. It is not merely a question of “gay marriage or no gay marriage.” It would be accurate to say that society is radically changed when there is a major shift in a long-standing, well-established, widely accepted understanding of a central institution like marriage. That sort of radical change has been foisted upon a handful of states, mostly by judicial fiat. For the populace to reject a radical change that has recently been imposed and does not represent such a long-standing, well-established, widely accepted social understanding is not similarly radical change, but the rejection of radical change and the affirmation of the larger status quo.
— SDG · Nov 6, 07:21 PM · #
I’m sorry but this is nonsense. By this logic, a program to strip Mainers of their iPhones and computers, indoor plumbing and electricity, and force them out of the city to agrarian communes would not be “radical”, since that would be an “affirmation of the status quo” of only scant decades ago.
Gay marriage was legal in Maine. Now, thousands of gay couples who were married may not be. What could possibly not be radical about that?
— Chet · Nov 6, 10:02 PM · #
“By this logic, a program to strip Mainers of their iPhones and computers, indoor plumbing and electricity, and force them out of the city to agrarian communes would not be ‘radical’, since that would be an “affirmation of the status quo” of only scant decades ago.”
Except for the fact that this analogy satisfies fewer than half of the terms in my statement (key terms you’re ignoring include “imposed,” “well established” and “widely accepted,” plus I’m not clear whether “a program to strip” is the same as a “populace rejecting”), one might think you had a point.
“Gay marriage was legal in Maine. Now, thousands of gay couples who were married may not be. What could possibly not be radical about that?”
As far as I know, Maine never actually had same-sex marriage. It was slated to go into effect earlier this year, but was delayed pending the referendum. Apparently no iPhones were stripped in the defense of the status quo?
— SDG · Nov 6, 10:32 PM · #
“Imposed”? In what sense is legalization of gay marriage an imposition, except on the government? You don’t have to like it; you don’t even have to recognize it. I don’t think a law could possibly do that.
California did. Can we at least agree that referendum was a radicalism its proponents have never been asked to account for?
— Chet · Nov 7, 08:07 AM · #
“‘Imposed’? In what sense is legalization of gay marriage an imposition, except on the government? You don’t have to like it; you don’t even have to recognize it. I don’t think a law could possibly do that.”
Tell it to the Catholic adoption agencies, hospitals and social programs that have been and will be pushed out of business.
Tell it to the New Hampshire legislature, which rejected governor John Lynch’s attempt to ensure that the state’s same-sex marriage bill would include religious exemptions ensuring that, e.g., religious bodies would not be subject to lawsuits or fines for declining to officiate at same-sex “weddings.”
Tell it to the Christian photographer in New Mexico who was fined $6637 for delining to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony, or the Georgia pyschologist who was fired for declining to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
These and other aggressive measures are already taking place in some cases even without same-sex “marriage.” Legal recognition of same-sex marriage will become a longer and harder stick with which to beat those who aren’t with the program.
“California did. Can we at least agree that referendum was a radicalism its proponents have never been asked to account for?”
California’s state Supreme Court imposed same-sex marriage on May 15, 2008. Prop 8 passed seven months later — and was upheld by the state Supreme Court, with the proviso that the 18,000 same-sex “marriages” already performed remained valid.
The original court decision imposed by fiat a radical change on society. Social reaction to this imposition was immediate, at at the earliest possible opportunity, i.e., seven months later, society declared its preference for the status quo of earlier in the year, rejecting the judicial fiat by democratic process. The two actions can’t remotely be considered equally “radical,” and analogies to iPhones and computers, let alone indoor plumbing and electricity, are hardly persuasive.
— SDG · Nov 7, 02:49 PM · #
For discriminating against gays, not because of anything having to do with marriage. And only because their “business” requires licensure and funding from the public. They want to suck at the public teat, they play by the public’s rules against discrimination.
Then they can hardly be laid at the feet of same-sex marriage, now can they? Yes, it’s becoming the case that those who enjoy the privilege of certain occupations, as bestowed by the public, can no longer revel in bigotry. A racist who refuses to serve a black man is certainly acting out of his own conscience, but that’s not a form of conscience that civil society is obligated to respect or protect.
In California? California passed it legislatively, first, but that was vetoed by the governor who believed that SSM was properly a matter for the courts (!). But, of course, that’s how the game is played. When justices ruled in favor of equality based on proclamations of it in constitutions, that was “fiat”, and equality opponents asserted that the only democratic course was legislation (because, I suspected, they felt that such legislation would be permanently untenable.)
Of course, when legislatures started getting onto the equality bandwagon, suddenly that was “fiat”, and the only pure democracy was the referendum. In a few years, when referendums start coming back in favor of marriage equality as well, I suppose that will be by “fiat” as well.
— Chet · Nov 7, 06:38 PM · #
“For discriminating against gays, not because of anything having to do with marriage. And only because their ‘business’ requires licensure and funding from the public. They want to suck at the public teat, they play by the public’s rules against discrimination.”
“Sucking at the public teat” is an absurd description of charitable agencies that serve communities, often poor urban and rural communities, where no one else is doing so. A lot more people will be hurt than helped by forcing religious institutions out of the helping business.
Public funding does complicate the issue, but using licensure to twist the arms of charities is only cutting of the public’s nose to spite its face. It’s like forcing pro-life healthcare professionals out of the industry if they don’t want to be involved in abortions: By making a shibboleth of “access,” actual availability of services is compromised.
“The public’s rules against discrimination” is exactly the point. When a few state justices militate against the actual public’s understanding of what is or isn’t discrimination without clear legal warrant, it is difficult to speak of “the public’s rules.”
“For discriminating against gays, not because of anything having to do with marriage” seems to be a false opposition. If e.g. a Catholic adoption agency places children with married couples, then the definition of marriage is precisely relevant.
“Then they can hardly be laid at the feet of same-sex marriage, now can they?”
Yes, as I implied, same-sex marriage is a part of a larger problem, not the whole problem.
“A racist who refuses to serve a black man is certainly acting out of his own conscience, but that’s not a form of conscience that civil society is obligated to respect or protect.”
“In California? California passed it legislatively, first, but that was vetoed by the governor who believed that SSM was properly a matter for the courts (!).”
AFAIK, the legislature originally passed bills only after being ordered to do so by the judiciary, which was an abuse of judicial power in the first place. Vetoing it was correct, and I agree with the governor’s message if not his sentence structure when he declared “I believe that gay marriage is between a man and a woman.”
I hadn’t heard the rationale that you mention given; if your characterization is accurate, it strikes me as a coward’s rationale and a horrible reversal of the correct relationship of the legislature and the judiciary.
“Of course, when legislatures started getting onto the equality bandwagon, suddenly that was ‘fiat’, and the only pure democracy was the referendum. In a few years, when referendums start coming back in favor of marriage equality as well, I suppose that will be by ‘fiat’ as well.”
The difference is that the legislature has the authority to declare things by fiat (Latin for “Let it be done,” an allusion to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s response to the angel, “Let it be done to me according to your word”). That’s their job: to legislate, to speak laws into being. It is not the judiciary’s job.
When and where legislatures pass same-sex marriage laws, I will oppose it, of course, but not by criticizing it as “fiat.” That’s a category mistake.
— SDG · Nov 8, 12:44 AM · #
They don’t have to get out of the helping business. They have to get out of the discrimination business. If they’re going to help – they have to help. Not help everyone but the undesirables.
Because they fulfill a government function. They can hardly complain when they’re granted the incredible power to bestow parenthood by the government, but then the government comes in and tells them how to do it. Nobody forced them to get into the adoption business, where other people’s marriages became so incredibly relevant.
I can’t understand how this isn’t obvious to you. People have a right to seek services they’re entitled to and to not be discriminated against in public. That’s been affirmed since well before either of us was born. Now, when you create a group for the very purpose of discrimination on some grounds – say, the Boy Scouts, or the KKK – that’s fine, and you can discriminate all you want, but you can’t expect to get a government handout, as well – either in terms of funding or in terms of the government-granted monopoly on certain kinds of services via licensure (dispensing pharmaceuticals, healthcare, adoption.) It is, after all, the government’s prerogative to discriminate against discriminators.
Groups that want to be in the “helping business” have to be in the helping business. They can’t be in the discrimination business, too.
The “problem” of equality, you mean, to religions and institutions that don’t see homosexuals as worthy of it. I recognize they frame it differently but the consequence is the same. I don’t see why it’s in society’s interest to reward bigotry. After all, it’s not like homobigot charities are the only game in town. (And frankly we shouldn’t be relying on charity in the first place.)
That’s a bit rich, the idea that the judiciary can order the legislature around. They can recommend, and I’m sure that’s what happened.
The judiciary’s job is to interpret constitutions. Where constitutions have been written to prevent discrimination against sex or sexual orientation – and prohibitions on marriage do both – the judiciary has no choice but to act. It’s not “creating law.” It’s following the constitution of their state. That’s not illegitimate. To call that “fiat” is just playing Calvinball; it’s just moving the goalposts to the next presumed-impossible standard. And all to avoid completely unknown, unspecified “negative” consequences of gay marriage that have never materialized in any of the states or societies that have allowed it? I really wonder what the point of all this is. Dreher thinks it’s absurd to say that half of Americans are bigoted, but there’s really no other explanation.
— Chet · Nov 8, 05:41 PM · #
“They don’t have to get out of the helping business. They have to get out of the discrimination business. If they’re going to help – they have to help. Not help everyone but the undesirables.”
Ever volunteer at an urban church-run soup kitchen, homeless shelter, etc? (I have.) It’s easy to lecture the Church about “undesirables” if you haven’t seen first-hand what the Church is doing for the needy — all the needy, regardless of race, creed, sexual preference, you name it.
Let’s be clear who the “needy” are who are being helped by adoption agencies: children. Not prospective parents. That’s why even though you can’t discriminate against people based on race, a couple of one race may be rejected as prospective parents for a child of a different race. It’s also why you can’t discriminate against unmarried couples regarding housing, but you can discriminate against unmarried couples when it comes to adoption.
Is it possible that e.g. white parents could raise a minority child as well as parents of the child’s ethnicity? Is it possible that an unmarried couple could provide as loving and secure a home as a married couple? Maybe, but adoption agencies have room for discretion in this area. Thus the definition of marriage is precisely relevant to the question of adoption, and “discrimination against undesirables” is a red herring.
“Because they fulfill a government function. They can hardly complain when they’re granted the incredible power to bestow parenthood by the government, but then the government comes in and tells them how to do it. Nobody forced them to get into the adoption business, where other people’s marriages became so incredibly relevant.”
They fulfill a social function, and have been doing so in some cases for centuries, long before anybody dreamed of redefining marriage to be anything other than the enduring union of a man and a woman. If the government is now suddenly going to force them out of the helping business they’ve been doing for so long, let’s be clear whether the society that will suffer the loss of their services is on board with the reasons why.
“Now, when you create a group for the very purpose of discrimination on some grounds – say, the Boy Scouts, or the KKK – that’s fine, and you can discriminate all you want, but you can’t expect to get a government handout, as well – either in terms of funding or in terms of the government-granted monopoly on certain kinds of services via licensure (dispensing pharmaceuticals, healthcare, adoption.) It is, after all, the government’s prerogative to discriminate against discriminators.”
Uh huh. So apparently you’re okay with shutting down all church-affiliated hospitals as well as driving all pro-life people out of women’s health if not healthcare in general? Church-affiliated schools, too, I suppose, if hiring active homosexuals is a problem for them? Hope that works out for your community and for the poorer communities around you.
Meanwhile, a couple of months ago the president of the National Women’s Health Foundation told the Washington Post that “Our doctors are graying and are not being replaced … The situation is pretty grave, pretty dire.” There’s plenty of room for it to get worse, though, and plenty of room for other sectors of public service to go the same route.
The irony is that the war on pro-life healthcare providers punishes all patients equally, pro-choice or pro-life. A pro-life woman who wants a pro-life ob/gyn won’t be able to make that choice, because the abortion lobby wants to drive them out of business in order to spare pro-choice women the potential trauma of having to go somewhere else for an abortion.
The reality is that this absolutism is not driven by concerns for “access” or equal treatment. The lesbian couple in New Mexico that sued the Christian photographer didn’t do so because they suffered any great difficulty or inconvenience, or because there were no other photographers to record their event. They did it to punish the enemy.
“The ‘problem’ of equality, you mean, to religions and institutions that don’t see homosexuals as worthy of it.”
“Homosexuals” are persons. All persons, whatever labels you choose to pin on them, are equal in dignity and value, equal in rights before the law, equally deserving of personal respect and honor (i.e., respect and honor due to them as persons; respect and honor due to achievement, office, etc. is a different matter).
That includes the right to marry. It does not include the right to call any domestic arrangement you like “marriage.” Marriage is a social institution that has a particular character, and I have yet to see anyone present a cogent case for why the state should have a bureaucracy for something called “marriage” in the first place, and be able to exclude certain types of arrangements (polyamory, incest, nonsexual friendships or family relationships, etc.), but should have no interest in the sexual complementarity of the spouses.
“That’s a bit rich, the idea that the judiciary can order the legislature around. They can recommend, and I’m sure that’s what happened.”
It would be nice to think so, but no, the judiciary can and does effectively order the legislature to act. That’s what happened in Massachusetts in November 2003 when the MA Supreme Court gave the legislature 180 days to emend the law against same-sex marriage. (However, I might be wrong about CA, apparently at least some of their legislative efforts were undertaken without judicial pressure. I might have been thinking about another state like Massachusetts. Not sure.)
“The judiciary’s job is to interpret constitutions.”
Quite so. And if only they would do just that, the world would be a better place.
Unfortunately, for too long judiciaries have been getting increasingly “creative” at “discovering” (or “interpreting”) constitutions in ways that would have stunned all their drafters and all legal opinion for decades afterward. Even when the courts began moving against racial segregation, they were articulating principles convergent with those motivating some of the original drafters and signatories of the Constitution, though obviously antithetical to others, and can thus be seen as articulating and advancing principles at work in the law itself. No such latency can reasonably be argued regarding a constitution “right” to abortion by way of “privacy” or a constitutional “right” to call “marriage” a union with any individual of either sex.
“And all to avoid completely unknown, unspecified ‘negative’ consequences of gay marriage that have never materialized in any of the states or societies that have allowed it?”
This mischaracterizes the situation significantly. The consequences of the redefinition of marriage, still very much in the early stages, are controverted, but hardly unspecified or unknown. It is also not an issue in a vacuum, but one piece of a larger social issue, the decline of marriage as the socially privileged context for child rearing and for sexual activity, a social issue with clear consequences for all of society.
Early data suggests that while very few individuals with same-sex attraction take advantage of same-sex “marriage” when and where it is available, those who do — which you would think would offer a highly motivated self-selecting group — are vastly more likely than different-sex couples to wind up in “divorce.” (More and more.)
“Dreher thinks it’s absurd to say that half of Americans are bigoted, but there’s really no other explanation.”
Why don’t you define “bigotry” and then we’ll see if your definition fits. It will be interesting to see if your definition is compatible with my statement about all persons being equal in dignity and value, personal respect and honor, and equal in rights before the law. And if it is, it will be interesting to see how persuasive a definition of “bigotry” it is.
— SDG · Nov 9, 12:57 AM · #
Sure, but for secular causes, because I don’t think a helping hand should come with a sales pitch.
You’re dancing around the issue, but that’s fine.
“The enduring union of one man and one woman” is a redefinition of marriage. For some reason, people like you tend to forget that more of the marriages in the Bible are bigamous than are not. Of course, you overlook all the gay marriages that have existed throughout culture, and even in the Bible. The Catholic church even has a ceremony on the books to perform at gay marriages, a special blessing for that union separate from the one used for straights. Why would that be if gay marriage is such a radical new thing? And what about all the African cultures for whom lesbian marriage is so traditional as to predate recorded history? Or does Africa not count?
Why would I have to? Are you under the impression that all religions and churches are anti-gay? That all pro-life people insist on having absolutely nothing to do with abortion whatsoever, including studying the procedure so as to perform it in a once-in-a-lifetime instant of medical necessity?
You continually overstate the support for your position, SDG. A slim majority of the minority of voting adults becomes “society.” The small number of religions that enshrine bigotry against gays become “all churches.” The micro-fraction of pro-lifer “sleeper agents” who became pharmacists just so they could force a court case about dispensation of drugs that they believe cause abortions (but don’t) become “all pro-lifers.”
You’ve taken the position of a significant-but-minority number of homobigots as a proxy for a vast consensus of society. I see no reason why that should be the case, or why I should be expected to play along.
Which homosexuals do not have.
Sexual complementarity would, at the very least, include people whose sexual preferences include each other, so the introduction of gay marriage would be the recognition of sexual complementarity. Someone who says “gay people can marry just like straights: someone of the opposite sex” is the person who has no regard for the sexual complementarity of spouses.
— Chet · Nov 9, 01:53 AM · #
“Sure, but for secular causes, because I don’t think a helping hand should come with a sales pitch.”
Since you acknowledge you haven’t volunteered at a church-run charity, you aren’t in a position to speak to sales pitches are you? They aren’t common in Catholic soup kitchens or homeless shelters: Catholics are serious about human dignity and service is an end unto itself. If you knew the Church’s work better, you would know that.
“‘The enduring union of one man and one woman’ is a redefinition of marriage. For some reason, people like you tend to forget that more of the marriages in the Bible are bigamous than are not.”
(a) Factually incorrect and (b) irrelevant, since even when bigamy is allowed marriage is still the enduring union of ONE man and ONE woman. Polygamy is not polyamory; polygamy means multiple marriages, not singular marriage with multiple partners. E.g. in the book of Genesis, Jacob was married to Leah and Jacob was married to Rachel; they were not the three of them married to one another. The enduring union of a man and a woman as a unique social institution is a socio-anthropological universal, despite vastly different cultural baggage from one society to another.
“Of course, you overlook all the gay marriages that have existed throughout culture, and even in the Bible. The Catholic church even has a ceremony on the books to perform at gay marriages, a special blessing for that union separate from the one used for straights. Why would that be if gay marriage is such a radical new thing? And what about all the African cultures for whom lesbian marriage is so traditional as to predate recorded history? Or does Africa not count?”
Seems to me you’ve been drinking the activist Kool-Aid, friend. No such book, blessing or unions exist, in the Bible, the Catholic Church or elsewhere that I’ve seen verified, though I have seen a fair amount of activist lying and distortion of evidence. If you want to get down to cases, produce the evidence and let’s see how credible it is.
“Are you under the impression that all religions and churches are anti-gay? That all pro-life people insist on having absolutely nothing to do with abortion whatsoever, including studying the procedure so as to perform it in a once-in-a-lifetime instant of medical necessity?”
The abortion lobby is determined to drive out of practice all healthcare professionals unwilling to cater to any woman’s sovereign right to terminate any pregnancy, any time, at any stage, for any reason. Even those going into other areas of medicine may have to undergo rotations or training in women’s health where conscientious objection to participation abortion on demand may be an offense not to be tolerated.
“You’ve taken the position of a significant-but-minority number of homobigots as a proxy for a vast consensus of society.”
I see you continue to throw names around, but have declined to define bigotry. I understand it’s easier sometimes to demonize the opposition, but I learned a long time ago that it makes me queasy to do so. I prefer to engage other points of view as they really are, not as I would prefer to think of them. It is a rigorous discipline, and not everyone is up for it.
“Sexual complementarity would, at the very least, include people whose sexual preferences include each other, so the introduction of gay marriage would be the recognition of sexual complementarity.”
Clever, but mutual preference and complementarity are not the same thing. You may be thinking of “compatibility,” a much more slippery and subjective category than complementarity.
— SDG · Nov 9, 02:31 AM · #
LOL! Sure, one man and one woman – and another, and another, and another. That must be the conservative definition of “one.”
Wow, amazing that a Catholic could know so little about his own faith. Takes an atheist, I guess. As usual.
Oh, I see. You’re determined to play word-games. One means many. “Complimentary” doesn’t mean “goes together.”
Sorry, SDG, but I can’t think of anything less interesting than playing word games on the internet. Maybe you can get back to me when you’re prepared to use the plain English meaning of words. Until then, ta-ta.
— Chet · Nov 9, 04:10 AM · #
“Wow, amazing that a Catholic could know so little about his own faith. Takes an atheist, I guess. As usual.”
Heh. Oh, I know all about John Boswell’s claims in Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, which is what you’re probably talking about. (I have half an idea that you suspected I did, and was prepared to rebut him, and declined to get specific for that reason.)
Boswell (who is a dissident gay Catholic, not an atheist) is highly motivated to “discover” precedents for same-sex marriage. However, even sympathetic pro-gay scholars inclined to give him every benefit of every doubt can acknowledge that “With all due respect, perhaps it is best to say that what Boswell here believes he proves he, in fact, only opines.”
Oh, and here’s a more critical perspective by an atheist feminist scholar. So there you go.
On the meanings of “one man and one woman” and “complementarity,” if the prosecution rests, the defense rests also. Cheers.
— SDG · Nov 9, 01:36 PM · #
P.S. That should have been “atheist feminist lesbian scholar.”
— SDG · Nov 9, 01:41 PM · #
P.P.S. Of course references to (the late) Dr. Boswell should have been in the past tense. Requiescat in pace.
— SDG · Nov 9, 03:12 PM · #