Intuition and Marriage
A number of years ago, I had a long, fairly involved conversation with a social conservative activist, one who was particularly involved (behind the scenes) in stopping the legalization of same-sex marriage. We talked a lot about his various current projects, about the unfortunate fact that many of those on his side did seem to harbor fairly strong anti-gay sentiment, about the various new online tools that were just becoming available to political activists, and about how important it was for defenders of traditional marriage to make a strictly secular case. What we didn’t talk about much at all, as I recall, was why, exactly, one should oppose the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. One reason why, I suspect, was that at the time I agreed with him.
The only time the topic came up was when he asked me, offhandedly, why I had come to believe as I did. The response I gave him, though, wasn’t much of an answer at all: I told him that I’d grown up in a strongly religious community, that my family was fairly active in our church, and that, in the end, it was a position that just intuitively made sense. Marriage was the union of a man and a woman. I understood this, and I felt confident — both because of then-current polling and my own sense of how others approached the issue — in saying that most other Americans understood this as well.
He smiled, clearly both pleased with my response and accustomed to hearing it from others, and agreed with me. “You’re right. You’re absolutely right. It just makes sense. You know it. I know it. And so does most of the public. And that is why I’m sure we’re going to win.”
Yet in the years since that conversation, his side has been losing ground — not just in courtrooms, but in nationwide polling. No doubt there are many contributing factors — one of which is that activists who’ve opposed same-sex marriage never actually bothered to come up with a truly convincing secular argument, despite widespread understanding that such an argument would be necessary. Instead, just as I did in my response, they relied on their intuition, their background, their instantaneous sense of discomfort with the idea. And, like the activist I spoke to, they firmly believed that it was that particular intuition, frequently (though not always) grounded in religious upbringing, that would eventually win the argument for them.
But it hasn’t. And so they’ve slowly attempted to come up with ways to justify their case. But as we saw earlier this summer in California, even professional advocates have, under thorough questioning, struggled to articulate clear reasons for their beliefs:
At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Counsel replied that the inquiry was “not the legally relevant question,” but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.“…
During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that “responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of this point.”
Is there any more damning moment for an advocate than when he admits that he not only does not know how to justify his own position, but that he believes it is so obvious, so utterly self-evident that it does not need justification at all? For the diehards, intuition is not just enough, it is everything.
But for the majority of the public, that will likely not suffice — not forever, anyway. It didn’t for me. In the months after that conversation, I found myself repeatedly questioning my own position, and found, after some struggling, that I could not support it. The best reason to worry about a change in how the state defines marriage was the fear of unintended consequences, of long-term ripple effects that could subtly but surely reshape society. But what might those consequences be? No one knows, or indeed if there will be any at all. Reduced to its essence, that fear is just another way to express one’s gnawing anxiety at the prospect of social change. It is an intuition about what marriage should and shouldn’t be, and I do not think that any intuition, no matter how strong or widespread, is enough to deny either a special classification or a set of state-defined benefits to a particular class of people.
Same-sex marriage opponents are no doubt failing in part because of their own inability to express a compelling rationale for their position, one that starts with the existing public understanding of what marriage is and should be and then argues that such an understanding is best served by keeping out same-sex couples. But in the long term, I suspect that the fight for equal marriage rights will succeed because millions of Americans will struggle with their intuitive opposition and decide, as I did, that they can not justify it to themselves.
“In the years since that conversation, though, his side has been losing ground — not just in courtrooms, but in nationwide polling. “
Eh, the CNN poll is a huge outlier… two recent polls in California still show gay marriage losing by about the same margin as the prop 8 vote… do you want another gay marriage outlier poll(in the other direction)…
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/americans-still-opposed-to-gay-marriage.html
I have a prediction… gay marriage will never be recognized in more than half of the states… and one day abortion(with some exceptions) will be illegal in at least a third of the states…
“Same-sex marriage opponents are no doubt failing in part because of their own inability to express a compelling rationale for their position”
Roe allowed us to kill millions of beings that we all once were for convenience sake… overturning man-woman marriage in every state will cause hundreds of thousands of beings to be created without a mother or father… I find that compelling enough to vote against gay marriage… and I really doubt my opinion ever changes… now you may say that they can procreate now without marriage so why withhold that from them? Yes they can, but they can only do that because of Roe and I want that overturned too… also enshrining that marriage belongs between a man and a woman is the last and only public outlet to express disapproval of that practice.
— ninjapirate · Aug 15, 07:08 PM · #
Re: have a prediction… gay marriage will never be recognized in more than half of the states… and one day abortion(with some exceptions) will be illegal in at least a third of the states…
“Never” is an extremely long time.
As for abortion, Roe vs Wade may someday fall (I actually hope it does), but I don’t see abortion being made completely illegal in any state. Recall that vote in South Dakota a few years ago where voters refused to vote for such a law even though it would be effectless with Roe in force. More restricted, yes. Many states would restrict abortion without Roe. But the public (even on the Right) generally believes there are three circumstances where abortion should be allowed: medical necessity, rape/incest, and their own family’s cicrumstance whatever it may be.
— JonF · Aug 15, 08:12 PM · #
“We talked a lot about his various current projects, about the unfortunate fact that many of those on his side did seem to harbor fairly strong anti-gay sentiment…”
For many if not most of the activists on his side, that’s a feature, not a bug.
— Mark in Houston · Aug 16, 12:27 AM · #
Don’t be so quick to quote that summary; it appears to be quite dishonest on the “lack of evidence” point. See http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243083/judge-walker-and-supposed-lack-evidence-marriage-s-procreative-purpose-ed-whelan
— John Doe · Aug 16, 12:37 AM · #
How do you think the arguments in your wife’s famous post of April 2, 2005 hold up? (The link is here: http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)
Does Megan still have no opinion on gay marriage, or has she changed her mind to be in favor of it?
— JD · Aug 16, 01:10 AM · #
“I have a prediction… gay marriage will never be recognized in more than half of the states…”
Lack of a compelling explaination of how gay marriage would materially harm society is the reason anti-gay marriage people keep trying to amend state constitutions. Because under current state (and the federal) constitutions, denying one class of people rights and benefits that are extended to other classes is a big no-no—unless you can show how extending rights to that class would materially harm society. Which no one has been able to do. They have been working on it for years now and have come up with worse than nothing (see Ross Douthat). If they had this compelling explaination they they wouldn’t need to change the state constitutions, they would just bring their compelling explaination to court and that would win the day. But since they don’t have this explaination, they will most likely lose unless they change the rules.
The problem with this strategy is, eventually the question is going to get to the Supreme Court (probablly pretty soon here) which opperates under the federal constitution. And becasue anti-gay marriage activists are most likely not going to be able to change the federal constitution, they are STILL going to need that compelling explainaiton of how gay marriage will materially hurt society. Without it, it is going to be very hard for the supreme court to deny same-sex marriage rights. They conservatie side still could come up with something weasly..societal norms, moving too fast, whatever…but it would be a stretch. I think Ted Olsen, someone they respect, would most likely be arguing and he has a very strong case, one that is much easier to argue one that doesn’t require the kind of twisted abstractions Ross came up with.
But what every happens, once it reaches the supreme court their deciscion is going to affect the whole country.
— cw · Aug 16, 02:28 AM · #
I’ve had the same issue in conversations with friends here in Australia.
Amongst my evangelical friends, we have the view that the bible is pretty clear on sexual ethics. And that binds us in our personal lives. And it should bind other christians in their personal lives who don’t disagree with our position.
But when i ask them for secular arguments against gay marriage, the arguments are pretty weak. They tend to hinge on not natural, bad for children and weakening a general commitment to marriage.
And i happen to agree on the importance of commitment to marriage, but the best way to improve that is to, you know, actually convince people to be more committed to their families, not to focus your energy on stopping gay people who are keen to demonstrate their commitment to a lifelong relationship.
For people strongly against gay marriage, the motivations are usually clearly religious, and they don’t cloak that amongst fellow travellers. But, as you say, that becomes pretty apparent when they can’t argue a compelling secular motive, though they know they need to so as to be able to secure wider support.
— Glen · Aug 16, 02:29 AM · #
Eh, the CNN poll is a huge outlier… two recent polls in California still show gay marriage losing by about the same margin as the prop 8 vote… do you want another gay marriage outlier poll(in the other direction)…
the trend line is clear. come on dude :-) your assertions are correct, but they don’t address the implicit point.
re: “secular case against X.” i think the secular case against polygamy is there to be made in a way that it isn’t against gay marriage. the proximate social consequences are more clear and distinct, because very few people are gay, but in many societies there’s plenty of evidence that polygamy can get quite popular.
— razib · Aug 16, 03:33 AM · #
“Yet in the years since that conversation, his side has been losing ground”
Last I checked, gay marriage was 0 for 31 in elections.
Obviously, however, it’s going to win. That’s because the people on top in our society have made it into a class marker.
— Steve Sailer · Aug 16, 05:22 AM · #
If you want to develop some intuition over possible unexpected consequences of gay marriage, watch “Idiocracy.” Then ask yourself whether gay marriage will make the Americans of 2505 AD think more highly of gays or less highly of marriage.
— Steve Sailer · Aug 16, 07:36 AM · #
“but in many societies there’s plenty of evidence that polygamy can get quite popular.”
So… it’s not OK to discriminate againts small groups. But discriminating against potentially large groups is fine?
— Sam M · Aug 16, 01:45 PM · #
“Obviously, however, it’s going to win. That’s because the people on top in our society have made it into a class marker.
— Steve Sailer”
You can only laugh at such a hilarious comment. The world these bigots live in is truly bizarre. To be gay means you’re from the “upper class” now. I guess no poor people give birth to gay people. LOL!
It’s going to win, Steve, because in the USA it is unconstitutional to deny one group of people the same rights given to another – PERIOD!
That’s it. That’s all. To those idiots arguing that a majority of voters in various states oppose it — THAT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. So what? It matters NOTHING if 99.9999% of the people oppose it.
The US constitution is designed to protect minority rights against the majority, and against an oppressive government that denies those rights.
Human and civil rights are NOT UP FOR A VOTE in this country. A long time ago a “majority” believed in the legitimacy of slavery and racial segregation.
If we made our human/civil rights decisions based on popular will, we’d still have slavery and racial segregation, women still couldn’t vote and Jews and other religious minorities couldn’t practice their faith.
— sandra · Aug 16, 01:54 PM · #
you’re misreading him. he’s not saying that being gay is a class marker, but that acceptance of gay marriage is a class marker.
don’t worry, the argument is still moronic. (i thought it couldn’t get worse than “gay marriage will make straight men think marriage is too gay!” as if anyone makes a decision to marry based on whether it seems cool. but then he actually went and invoked ‘idiocracy’, so…) the jiu jitsu here is to pretend that gay marriage has been artificially tied to the ruling class by those shadowy, mysterious elites, when just the opposite is true: that support for gay marriage trends highest amongst the intelligent and predominantly college-educated, who thanks to these gifts of intelligence disproportionately make up the ruling class.
in other words, one more incoherent culture warrior turning the correlate into the cause. futilely, in this case, as he’s striving to be upper class himself and therefore is surrounded by people who don’t take the bait.
— max · Aug 16, 02:49 PM · #
“…But as we saw earlier this summer in California, even professional advocates have, under thorough questioning, struggled to articulate clear reasons for their beliefs”
To me, the strongest pro-gay marriage was that the anti-gay marriage side did not cite Massachusetts in their arguments. If there had been bad side effects, they would have been cited as an argument against same-sex marriage.
to JonF @ 04:12 PM: I think what happened in SD a few years ago was that the law applied to all women. Most anti-abortion measures targeted some marginal group: poor women who required public assistance, minors, late-term abortions. This law affected educated middle-class women who probably thought: “I am not voting to take this choice away from myself. Maybe other women, but not me.”
It’s also nice to see a conservative re-think his position in light of new evidence. I’m trying to think of a conservative who said “W’s foreign and domestic policies didn’t work very well. Maybe we should re-think our approach”, and I’m coming up with (maybe) David Frum, who got thrown out of the movement for his honesty. Conservatives sure didn’t have a problem telling liberals they need to move to the center.
— amorphous · Aug 16, 04:05 PM · #
No secular argument: how about “Since the dawn of time…” or “Before any organized cohesive or coherent religions got going …” or “So far it’s worked OK most of the time…” none of which requires that heterosexual married folks are by their natures bigoted against gay folks or otherwise think ill of them. Just “children come from people having sex with someone of the other sex and children are (generally speaking) better protected by those what made them.”
Why does the base line HAVE to be “Disprove this.” Why not “Prove The Other?”
— Diane · Aug 16, 04:07 PM · #
Marriage has been redefined time after time after time. Each time it was redefined, nobody stood up until only recently now that the homosexuals are clamoring for their own redefinition of marriage.
1954 – Artificial Contraception a constitutional right. This redefines marriage to not include children.
1973 – Roe. This redefines marriage further to permit the killing of babies already created.
1970’s – no fault divorce = Marriage redefined to mean “oh that inconvient till death do us part” no longer applies.
1980’s – shacking up now treated equal to marriage in many places. Marriage redefined to be little more than shacking up with a piece of paper.
1990’s – seperation of church and state means God is taken out of Marriage again. Another redefinition.
So now the homosexuals are stepping forward and rightfully clamoring for yet another redefinition of marriage. They’re now trying to redefine the sexual orientation part of the definition of marriage. No more “heterosexuals only” being part of marriage.
They’ll win. This part was lost.
Just wait until the other sexual orientations step forward and demand their right to marry. Polygamists/Polyandrists (multi-amorists). Pedophiles. And other sexual orientations too disgusting to mention.
In Denmark, the place where “gay marriage” had an early inroads, pedophiles are now having their own political party and guess what they’re clamoring for?
Polygamists/polyandrists are also sitting on the sidelines waiting for the inevitable victory of the homosexuals.
There are many reasonable, secular, and logical arguments against homosexual “marriage” – but the gay groups have successfully squashed them. Not the same as actually winning the argument, they basically declared that any disagreement with their agenda = homophobia and that shuts down any calm, rational discussion. First amendment? Nope. Free speech is a hate crime. Shut up (heteros, Christians, etc.) and go to the back of the bus.
Tyranny. Imposed by homosexuals.
— BK · Aug 16, 04:11 PM · #
I support gay marriage and would vote for it. But I have a real problem with the courts imposing it on the country. While being gay is nothing new, gay marriage is. It is a new social construct. So the suggestion that it magically appears out of 19th Century equal protection clauses (state or federal) is legal mumbo jumbo. That is why Judge Walker is wrong.
If the public trend is for recognition, then why not pass it democratically? I hope Justice Kennedy (who it appears will be the fulcrum where this issue will tip) will recognize the judicial principal vs. the policy argument. Because his role is not to determine policy, but interpret the law.
— Joe · Aug 16, 04:23 PM · #
Still no acknowledgment that the “no evidence” discussion in the post is just flat-out wrong? It’s not a disputable point — the lawyer wasn’t saying what he has been represented as saying.
— JD · Aug 16, 04:27 PM · #
Hi,
The reasoning behing the opposition is the fundamental differences in purpose and derivation that come from Same-gender marriage
The purpose in traditional marriage has always been to form both a protection for children, and a protection for women, who don’t have to rear children on their own (as frequently happens without marriage) It introduces responsibility for the father into a child’s life, which helps children and fathers out.
The purpose in same-gender marriage is primarily to ratify physical pleasure and caring. While these things happen in traditional marriages too, it is a secondary rather than primary role. When this becomes the primary role of traditional marriage, it will lessen the importance of traditional marriage and cause cohabitation.
The religious derivation of marriage (see for instance, Genesis) and the court-derived same-gender marriage come froma different source. A god-given right is very different than a government-given right, and treating traditional marriage as Government-given would again lead to it lessening
— Jason Jackson · Aug 16, 04:28 PM · #
What I always ask and have written to my representatives, if you are going to support gay marriage then go all the way. We must define what consummates the male-male and female-female marriage and put that into legal definitions as there are for heterosexual marriages. If the politicians and lawyers have the will to openly define what consummates each of these unions, then do it! Let’s not just get by with the “feel good” sentiments of “if two people are in love they should be able to marry no matter what sex they are!”
— DK · Aug 16, 04:36 PM · #
If two men make a marriage, why not three? Or two men and a woman? Or …
— JinEugene · Aug 16, 04:38 PM · #
“you don’t have to have evidence of this point.” This reply by proponent’s counsel was taken out of context by the Judge and subsequent reports. Proponent’s argument may be wrong or unpersuasive, but its not ipse dixit either. Ed Whelan at NRO has pointed out that proponent’s reply comes in an exchange with Judge Walker:
Walker interrupted him to ask the . . . question, “I don’t mean to be flip, but Blackstone didn’t testify. Kingsley Davis didn’t testify. What testimony in this case supports the proposition?” [3039:16-18]. Cooper responded to Walker’s question: “Your Honor, these materials are before you. They are evidence before you.… But, your Honor, you don’t have to have evidence for this from these authorities. This is in the cases themselves. The cases recognize this one after another” [3039:19-3040:1]. Walker: “I don’t have to have evidence?” [3040:2]. Cooper: “You don’t have to have evidence of this point if one court after another has recognized—let me turn to the California cases on this” [3040:3-5]. . . . Cooper then proceeded to present California cases stating (in Cooper’s words, which may include direct quotations not reflected in the transcript’s punctuation) that the “first purpose of matrimony by the laws of nature and society is procreation,” that “the institution of marriage … channels biological drives … that might otherwise become socially destructive and … it ensures the care and education of children in a stable environment,” and that (in a ruling just two years ago) “the sexual procreative and childrearing aspects of marriage go to the very essence of the marriage relation” [3040].
— M · Aug 16, 04:45 PM · #
The problem with this, Peter, is that the standard is now so low that you’ll need to explain, as some posters have noted, why someone cannot marry two other people. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not really know what to say when asked this questions; they are, after all, committed to the “love makes a family” ideology. Just because some polyamorous relationships do not work out, and women are oppressed in some of them, and so forth, does not mean that all such relationships are this way. Does anyone doubt we can find at least one poly relationship where the partners have been together for a very long time, and where the women in the relationship are happy with it? After all, most same-sex sexual relationships are not monogamous (this is not a secret or a controversial proposition in the gay community, incidentally) but this is not regarded as justifying limiting marriage to man and woman. People claim to be born “poly” and demand “marriage equality” in accordance with their sexual appetite. Marriage is now fundamentally about “me” and what “I” want; any person or group can change the definition because they somehow have a “right to marry” whomever they’d like. Given this new reality to which Peter acquiesces, poly people must be allowed to marry.
The truth is that most libertarian folks (like Peter) do not really object to group marriage, although most act as if they do so as not to do damage to the same-sex marriage cause. Group marriage is but a logical extension of a principle already adopted by proponents of same-sex marriage: that the state has an obligation to recognize (as marriage) any relationship anyone wishes to engage in based on their personal sexual desire. To not do so is discrimination.
— Mike P. · Aug 16, 05:02 PM · #
It’s funny when people lie.
“You don’t have to have evidence of this point if one court after another has recognized—let me turn to the California cases on this.”
““you don’t have to have evidence of this point.”
You seem to have made up a full stop, and ignored his point.
“Your Honor, these materials are before you. They are evidence before you.… But, your Honor, you don’t have to have evidence for this from these authorities. This is in the cases themselves. The cases recognize this one after another. “
His point was that other courts have recognised the point- he did elsewhere submit evidence. The judge was arguing that he needed to cite live witness court testimony. The judge’s idea that you don’t need to actually respect precedent in other courts, and that witness testimony overrules precedent in other courts is an absolutely absurd position for a judge to take, and the guy was rather confused by it. The judge, likely recognising that ignoring other court cases that he didn’t like was a step too radical for any court, lied. The judge is rather biased. You shouldn’t just take him at his word. Check your facts first.
— Thomas Whittaker · Aug 16, 05:02 PM · #
Intuition is knowing what is right and what it wrong. It’s like saying, that color is black and that color is white. You know it to be true. In today’s society, black has become white and white has become black. There is no use in explaining it because no one will listen and they will do their own thing anyway. Up is down. Left is right. It’s called the destruction of society and common sense. Marriage is between a man and woman because it can’t be anything else. They can call these so-called “unions” anything they want but it isn’t marriage and never will be.
— potvin · Aug 16, 05:26 PM · #
One of the basic problems with your analysis is your position that beliefs are based on reasons, rather than reason being based on beliefs. All laws, and all activities, are based on some determination of right or wrong. That determination is ultimately based on some belief of what right or wrong is. Reason is merely a logical application of some previous premise, it does not supply a justification for belief or the original premise.
Take for example theft, why is it wrong. You could argue that it takes what others worked for, or precludes society from developing a strong economy. However those points merely beg the question, why are those circumstances wrong. Ultimately there is a belief involved.
The same with sexual standards. You could argue that they must be justified by some problematic result, such as disease or social alienation. But again, why are such results wrong. There is a belief involved.
Belief is a determination regarding what is real. There is a belief that nature is real, for instance. The notion that there is a right or wrong is a belief that there is a personal reality which transcends humanity that makes certain actions right or wrong. This is a God concept, it is implicit in all your actions, including your expression of opinion here. It is not based on reason, it is the basis for reason.
— Tom · Aug 16, 05:53 PM · #
As a former single woman in the Swinging Seventies and eighties, I find this issue surreal. Back in the day, I constantly heard from “progressives” the party line that marriage was “just a piece of paper”, or a “prison for women” etc. etc. Men at the time seized on all this rhetoric to avoid commitment to one woman, even if that woman was the mother of their child. Liberated couples bailed out of marriage left and right, enriching the legal profession and damaging children. Some prog Hollywood couples haven’t got the memo yet and are still shacking up. The societal carnage was catastrophic.
And now gays want in on this gravy train? I’m sorry, but I smell a big fat rat. (or gerbil, if you prefer). I also wonder if gays really understand what they are doing here, and my secualr approach to them is: “Be careful what you wish for.” Surely the ability to skate out of the pressure to commit is one of the perks of being gay. …particularly for men. I have a feeling that if this gay marriage thing ever gets imposed on society, there will be rich and influential gays screaming for its repeal in about 10 years. Now I am a happily married woman with 2 children who were conceived without involving any 3rd or 4th parties. Because that’s the other potential minefield. Gays can’t have kids without involving someone of the opposite sex. Remember the Baby M case? Well, we’re just getting started, me beauties. God help us all.
— Megalass · Aug 16, 05:59 PM · #
We call my son Mr. Hypothetical. He is always asking us crazy what-ifs. Most of the time, there is no way to explain, because it is just outrageous, but not being able to put into words why it just is doesn’t change the fact that what he’s proposing is erroneous. Sometimes it is what it is and there is no way to really explain it because the contrary is just so stupid. Two men married…just stupid. Never happen, no matter what a court says. Or what the vast majority of secular Hollywood indoctrinated people say…Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. ~Oh that everyone could be as rational as GK Chesterton.
And we do know what the unintended consequences will be. Just look at Canada, or New Mexico and New Jersey, for that matter. Ask Rev. Hoffman of Ocean Grove, or photographer Elaine Huguenin. BK @ Aug 16 12:11 is spot on. But you go right ahead and dismiss that so called intuition. Refuse to allow religious arguments into the debate. What you are doing is blocking THE TRUTH from the debate. But of course, that is the only way your side would ever win it. Here’s a thought for you, though: Be careful what you wish for; God just might let you have it.
— Pamela · Aug 16, 06:28 PM · #
keep your chin up, mr. hypothetical! one day you’ll be able to escape all that.
— max · Aug 16, 06:48 PM · #
wow some of you really need a few lessons in logic and deductive thinking. You’ve been blindly following theological morals for so long you forgot what reasoning really is. This is exactly like hearing a creationist talk about evolution being a lie, and than ignoring that we breed animals for traits everyday as a matter of course. Does god therefore specially create each breed out of clay and than stuff it in the mothers womb? Morality can be constructed out of property rights as easily as it is deconstructed from your religious texts. If a person is entitled to the work that they do than it is wrong for someone to take that work from them by theft without some form of reimbursement. If someone takes a life they steal tax revenue and potential from the state, and the state has to decide what is the best course of action for murderers. Is a child the property of the mother, the father, both, or the state? is abortion wrong if the mother is threatened? is an unborn equal to the real potential of the mother? Logic and reason can answer all these questions without any scripture. In fact I suspect you would be hard pressed to find scriptures that deal with such issues in the new testament.
If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
— President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. – Benjamin Franklin: in letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
— President Thomas Jefferson: in letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813
— Tim · Aug 16, 06:53 PM · #
the constituition protects individual rights not certain minorities. life liberty and pursuit of happiness rights given to us by our creator.the individual not certain minorities. read the constitution the truth shall set you free
— cmp · Aug 16, 07:10 PM · #
I think the entire point of same-sex marriage is about power and not granting of any right. It is about “equalizing” homosexual behavior with heterosexual behavior, not about granting a marriage certificates. It is abnormal to think that as you change fundamentals of a society (the family unit), nothing bad will happen. But heck, let’s see and adjust. I mean, the fact that homosexual “marriages” break up at triple the rate and that their marriage is not seen the same as a heterosexual marriage- I guess they are still entitled to it. Or that a study in the 1970s that showed close to half the homosexual males had sex with 500 or more partners. This is normal I guess. Or that gay males have a higher dependency and abuse on alcohol than straight men (in a document that talks about what gay men should talk to their healthcare providers in 2010). Nope. Or even higher domestic violence among gay couples. No difference in gay or straight behavior. Everything is fine. Glad the courts are way ahead of the curve on us “crazies” out here. Next up will be some other new right the court will give to people. If 2 gay men want to live together, fine. Calling it marriage is silly. Enshrining it into law is beyond silly.
— Michael · Aug 16, 07:34 PM · #
This straight married guy has a question (and don’t you think it’s about time a straight married man’s voice was heard on this matter?). The wife and I have been married for nearly ten years now. No kids, and we aim to keep it that way. We don’t have any particular philosophical axe to grind w/r/t this, and we certainly don’t have anything against childrearing per se – someone’s got to do it! But neither of us have ever felt the need to do this ourselves (at any point in our lives – both before and after we met), and we think – quite sensibly, if I do say so myself – that this sort of immense responsibility ought to be something you undertake enthusiastically or not at all.
So, for those of who, unlike Pete, feel you can intellectually justify your intuition: Is my marriage a threat to the traditional family, free society and so forth? Are we devaluing the currency of the institution more or less than Adam and Steve in Iowa?
— Handsome Dan · Aug 16, 08:08 PM · #
It is no longer clear that the government at any level should recognize any marriage. A solid case can be made that persons seeking civil union, in an possible combination, should all receive equal treatment. This includes straight monogamous, straight polygamous, homosexual monogamous, and homosexual polygamous. A ratio can be applied to splitting death benefits or survivors rights. The rest is simple will and inheritance stuff and can be done however the affected people would like it done.
Children would be recognized as biological issue only, with bio-mom and bio-dad equal in rights and duties. Anonymous donors (or unidentified at time of birth) of egg or sperm would be free of any duty or rights. None of this is particularly complicated, and real equality can be attained between the various relationships, at least in the eyes of the law.
I am not in favor of it personally, but the times are changing, as are mores, and the laws will follow.
— Brian Reilly · Aug 16, 08:18 PM · #
Handsome Dan.
Great question.
Marriage is not JUST for raising kids (be it birth, adoptive or foster parenting). It is the basis of the family unit. Families do not necessarily have kids. As I mentioned above, there are lots of studies that show the instability of homosexual “unions”, cohabitation or otherwise compared to heterosexual marriages. The reason for this, obviously, is that a homosexual family unit is not stable (and, of course, there are exceptions). The entire “relationship” between homosexual men is not to “settle” down with one partner for instance. The only way that your marriage to your wife would be a threat to society is if your intent was not “marriage”: between you and your wife, working out your differences and being united with the intent of being united forever. If it was different, for instance, you wanted to have a wife and a mistress too, then it is not marriage and it is a threat to the well being (used to be called Natural Law) of society for several reasons (it will be unstable and it is erroneously called marriage).
— Michael · Aug 16, 08:29 PM · #
THere’s a different class of argument at TAS today.
— cw · Aug 16, 08:37 PM · #
Visitors. TAS is not just about gay marriage. It also has Canadian theater reviews by the excellent Noah Millman (who also has opinions about gay marriage). I especialy recommend his review and then re-review of Shakespear’s The Tempest.
— cw · Aug 16, 08:44 PM · #
MegalAss, please reconsider your handle— it reinforces negative stereotypes about old wives.
— Tony Artaud · Aug 16, 08:45 PM · #
Michael—
I led with the question about kids since that seems to be where arguments about this sort of thing tend to drift anyway. I suppose I should come right out with it and admit that I’m mildly in favor of – it’d be more accurate to say “not against” – gay marriage. I’m not an evangelist about the institution of marriage in the way that, say, Andrew Sullivan is; my reasoning is pretty dull and utilitarian in that 1) there seems to be a legitimate desire on the part of a not-insignificant portion of gay people to receive the legal benefits of marriage and 2) the burden of proof, for me, is on those who would deny someone else’s liberty, and none of the arguments against it are terribly compelling.
Including the one you give in the answer to my question! The only thing stopping me from running around with a mistress is the fact that I don’t wish to do so (well, that and I’m kind of funny looking, and I dress like Joey Ramone and I’m a bit of a snarky asshole to everyone I meet, and I’ve found that such a combination doesn’t test well with the ladies, prospective mistress-material or otherwise). But I could potentially bring about such a state of affairs and the law would have nothing to say about it; lots of guys (and girls) actually bring about such a state of affairs and the law has nothing to say about it. Why should it be any different for Adam and Steve?
Or Jane and Susan? You (and your studies – which you can link to, right?) refer to “homosexual men”, but what about women? If they demonstrate less of a propensity to run around on their partners, why should they be barred from marrying? To pay for the sins of their less-faithful male counterparts? Does not compute.
— Handsome Dan · Aug 16, 09:10 PM · #
Reason is merely a logical application of some previous premise, it does not supply a justification for belief or the original premise.
Reason and experience cannot prove a belief, but they can disprove some beliefs.
— Consumatopia · Aug 17, 01:59 AM · #
Reason and experience cannot prove a belief, but they can disprove some beliefs.
For example, reason and experience can disprove the belief, if anyone really believes it, that leftwingers favor 1st Amendment religious freedom in the siting of religious buildings near the WTC site. Unless there exists a Charlie Brown who is willing to let Lucy hold the football for him one more time, I doubt there is anyone gullible enough to believe that this time they really, truly are going to be different from before and are going to be supporters of 1A.
— The Reticulator · Aug 17, 04:51 AM · #
I doubt it. If they could, you wouldn’t have lost this argument so badly. You wouldn’t have to talk about counter-factual “experience”, you would point to actual experience of Bloomberg or I (not just some “leftwinger” somewhere) opposing the building of a church for reasons that wouldn’t apply to the building of a mosque.
There are other threads related to the mosque, why you gotta try jacking this one?
— Consumatopia · Aug 17, 01:53 PM · #
To the folks arguing that gay marriage leads to legalization of polygamy, pedophilia, etc.:
1.) This slippery slope argument has been made against each advance of gay rights, starting in the 1970’s when states were repealing anti-sodomy laws. Ironically, gay rights has probably lead to less pedophilia because victims are less fearful of the stigma of homosexuality and therefore more likely to step forward (sorry, Catholic Church)
2.) Same sex marriage actually works against polygamy by reenforcing the idea that EVERYONE gets 1 spouse.
Right now, heterosexual = 1 spouse and homosexual = 0 spouse
After same-sex marriage, EVERYONE = 1 spouse
— Rick · Aug 17, 02:17 PM · #
Once we allow two men to marry, what’s to stop a man from marrying a pig. That’s why we need to repeal the 15th Amendment to US Constitution that gave the right to vote to African American males… Because what’s next? Allowing women to vote (19th Amendment)? And after allowing women to vote… Allowing pigs to vote? We need to place the rights of African Americans and women up to a vote of white males. We certainly don’t need to change decades of voting history that had ( up until the undemocratic change to the Constitution been made) not allowed these two groups to vote. After we do this, we can then go after the gays with renewed hatred… I mean “Christian” vigor!
— Thomas · Aug 17, 02:21 PM · #
@ BK “First amendment? Nope. Free speech is a hate crime. Shut up (heteros, Christians, etc.) and go to the back of the bus.”
Let’s get one thing straight here, BK. The 1st Ammendment protects your right to say any stupid, ignorant, hateful thing you want, so long as you are not insighting violence.
I, for example, have the Constitutional right to say that religious schooling of children is child abuse. Or that women should not be allowed to drive. Or that Catholic Churches shouldn’t be built within three miles of a daycare center. I can say these things without fear of persecution from the government.
What the 1st does NOT do is guarantee that you will have to respect and agree with my point of view.
So it is with opponents of SSM. You have the absolute right to publically proclaim your irrational bigotry, and the rest of us have the right to point out that your beliefs have no basis in fact.
That’s how this works.
BTW, seeing as roughly half the population supports ssm now, and the overwhelming majority of the population is both hetero and christian, you may want to rethink who exactly you’re arguing with.
— Patrick · Aug 17, 02:35 PM · #
so the argument was made that gay relationships are less stable, with little probability-based statistics to back up that assertion. But here’s at least anecdotal information from my friends: My relationship: 24 years; Jeff and Ollie: 44 years; Mike and Cam: 12 years; Dave and Chris: 15 yrs; Bob and Bryan: 12 years; Mike and Jim: 14yrs; Jake and Chuck: 11 years; Jason and Bob: 8 yrs; Steve and Marty: 4 years; Ryan and Scott: 18yrs and there’s plenty more I’m missing. A gay relationship is as strong as straight relationship and is built on the same foundation: love, respect and commitment.
— Don · Aug 17, 03:26 PM · #
“the standard is now so low that you’ll need to explain, as some posters have noted, why someone cannot marry two other people. Proponents of same-sex marriage do not really know what to say when asked this questions; they are, after all, committed to the “love makes a family” ideology. Just because some polyamorous relationships do not work out, and women are oppressed in some of them, and so forth, does not mean that all such relationships are this way.”
This gets right to the point. There isn’t just anecdotal evidence that some polyamorous relationships don’t work out, there is concrete evidence that polygomous societal structures have all sorts of horrible consequences. All you have to do is look at the FLDS communities and their lost boys, and the way in which women are oppressed. It’s the same thing with children (the slippery slope to NAMBLA argument)- children are damaged by sexual relatiosnhips with adults, and the evidence is compelling and abundant.
Gay marriage, however, has not yielded any such problems, despite extensive “field testing” in states where it is legal. In fact, I am sure the opposite holds – I don’t have any data at hand, but I imagine monogomous gay couples bound by marriage are much healthier and happier than those who don’t have the option.
You don’t have to scare up all sorts of “what ifs”. Use reason and your powers of observation, and you’ll see the truth.
— Mark · Aug 17, 03:43 PM · #
Let’s hearken back to 1918, just before women got the right to vote. Here were some of the arguments against making the change:
1) The Bible states that women do not have the same degree of authority as their husbands, and that their husband should “rule over” them, and that no woman should have authority over a man. This appears in the Old and New Testaments (Genesis, First Timothy).
2) It’s not just Christianity – Islam and Judaism have traditionally put a strong emphasis on the second-class status of women regarding having a voice in society.
3) It’s not just religion – almost every great civilization that exists or has ever existed has relegated women to a second class status. The Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Chinese Empires, the Vikings, the kingdoms of Europe, etc. etc. etc. All these civilizations valued women, but women were not the equal of men.
4) Who are we to deny 5,000 years of nearly unanimous religious and cultural tradition? How can we put society at risk for the social experiment of giving women the right to vote?
If you can refute these 1918 arguments, then it seems you are also refuting today’s arguments against allowing homosexuals to have civil (not religious) marriages. It’s hard to see how you can have it both ways.
— Yeek · Aug 17, 03:52 PM · #
Michael, you deny gay men (and women) the stability and protection of marriage and then argue that they don’t deserve marriage because their relationships are unstable? The gay sexual culture of the ’60s and ’70s existed in large part because gay men grew up thinking that their sexuality was wrong and that they had to keep it a secret. If you can’t even admit to yourself that you’re gay, you’re certainly not going to tell your sexual partners your name or where you live, so you end up having anonymous sex in the bushes or a public restroom (and it still tends to be closeted men married to women who engage in such behaviors). Even men who were relatively out tended to shove their romantic lives off into a corner, never integrating their partners with their work or their extended families. With all of that, of course relationships were less stable.
But more and more, kids today grow up knowing that their sexual orientation is just part of who they are. They expect to date, to talk about the people they date with their friends and family, to bring the people they date to things like proms and family functions. And they expect and want to be able to marry. I’m willing to bet that in 30 years, you’ll find that the gay/lesbian kids growing up today are living lives very much like their peers. And that will include, for many of them, getting married to express their mutual commitment to each other.
— Jon · Aug 17, 04:09 PM · #
As long as we’re discussing arguments in favor of restricting marriage, let me quote from the judge who upheld Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law in 1959, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Loving vs. Virginia (Best legal case name. Ever.), held unconstitutional by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1967.
People have been quoting the Bible to justify their personal, societal prejudices without any actual reason or evidence for a long, long time. Prohibitions on same-sex marriage will fall and in 50 years, nobody will understand what all the fuss was about.
— Laura · Aug 17, 04:49 PM · #
Reading the comments, I can’t get past the fact that arguments against same sex marriage come down to bigotry.
For example: BK wrote, “In Denmark, the place where “gay marriage” had an early inroads, pedophiles are now having their own political party and guess what they’re clamoring for?…Tyranny. Imposed by homosexuals.”
Denmark doesn’t have same sex marriage. It has been voted down by their parliament, most recently in June. They have registered partnerships. This post was just another bigoted attempt to link same sex marriage with pedophilia.
— Dan · Aug 17, 05:01 PM · #
At first I was thinking these might be parodies of anti-same-sex-marriage arguments.
But then I realized it’s impossible to know. Interesting!
— Socrates · Aug 17, 06:58 PM · #
“Still no acknowledgment that the “no evidence” discussion in the post is just flat-out wrong? It’s not a disputable point — the lawyer wasn’t saying what he has been represented as saying.”
The point of the hearings held were to examine the question of marriage equality FRESH based on scientific data, WITHOUT deferring to the conclusions of experts past, but instead taking testimony from CURRENT experts in the courtroom WHO COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED. The cross-examination is crucial. Any smart person can write a convincing polemic against just about anything, but upon cross-examination in a courtroom, arguments that seemed convincing on paper often melt away when the polemicist has to answer questions put to him by the other side. This is how courtrooms (at their best) “get to the bottom of things” and find out the truth.
The pro-prop 8 lawyers wanted to trot out the conclusions of eminent minds in ages past. Without the ability to CROSS-EXAMINE those eminent minds, the judge was not in any position to know whether those eminent minds had actual probative data to help shed light on the case, or were merely regurgitating the conventional wisdom of their times.
— RH Macy · Aug 17, 11:32 PM · #
Folks, it’s quite simple. I am a gay man, born and raised in America. I have a partner whom I love very much, every bit as much as you all love your husbands and wives. You may not be able to understand that, but that’s just the way it is. We got married this year in Canada (it’s sad that a citizen of our great country has to go to Canada to get married…). We have lived together for many years. My state does not recognize my marriage. But our families do; our friends (both gay and straight) do. We wanted to get married for the same reasons you did: we are in love, we are committed to one another, and we would like to start a family. There is nothing nefarious about it. We are not doing anything to hurt your marriage, much less the institution of marriage. On the contrary, we are strengthening the institution, in my opinion. We feel that we are both entitled to the same rights and privileges that civil marriage confers, as our siblings and parents have: we should be able to visit one another in the hospital if one is ill; we would like to have our employers cover us if one of us should lose his job and healthcare benefits; we believe we are entitled to survivor benefits from Social Security when, one day, one of us passes on; we feel like we shouldn’t have to spend thousands of dollars on legal documents to try to mimic benefits that our heterosexual family and friends take for granted and get essentially for free, just by being married. And there are many, many more reasons, not a single one of which is detrimental to marriage, yours or ours. I know many of the readers here hold strong religious beliefs which color their views of gays. But the irony is, to me at least, that Jesus would have been the first person to stand up for gays, if he were here today. He quite literally said that the old laws do not matter and gave a new commandment (I think you know what it is, but many do not have the faith to practice it).
I urge all gay people reading this site who are not out to friends and family, to heed the words of Harvey Milk: Come out! Come out to your family, friends, and co-workers. Once our fellow conservative and religious Americans realize that we are their friends, their cousins, their sons and daughters, their brothers and sisters, they will indeed realize that we aren’t demons and ghouls, but people just like them. And studies have shown over and over again that, once a person realizes they know and love gay people, they are much more inclined to agree that we should enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as they do.
— Scott · Aug 18, 03:47 AM · #
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” John 13:34.
— Vancity · Aug 19, 04:45 AM · #
Longing to Belong: subconscious alignment with the popular collective unconscious within one’s social field to reinforce one’s sense of safety and belonging.
This sentence may more aptly describe what the author was feeling rather than “intuition.” Intuition, if truly that, will come from a neutral place…a sense of wholeness and observation without attachment to the results. A feeling of agreement may appear after the intuitive event, but it will be the personality responding usually based social conditioning, unless change has been stirred in one’s heart by the truth revealed in intuitive observation when received in a neutral energy of holistic consciousness.
So, having been an intuitive all of my life and using it to help people see themselves and their choices more clearly so that they themselves may make informed choices for their own lives, I will say that the invocation of the word intuitive to describe one’s limited beliefs (ideology, theological or secular, for social acceptance) as authority for to impose restrictions on the human equality of other human beings is unjustifiable. The author of this article ultimately realized that when he reached a place of neutral consideration which revealed the truth behind the unconscious exertion of emotional need to feel accepted within a social field.
The attribution of “intuition,” “God’s law,” or “the Holy Spirit” to the strong feelings felt within self-identified religious organizations or even communities is usually just the expression of pain within the people that reflects a need for themselves to feel acceptance and that they are loved and lovable.
For most Americans the deep wounds felt from alienated parents, absent fathers and mothers, and broken homes due to unsustainable marriages are driving the appearance of social divide between so-called conservative, liberals, Christians, Muslims, spiritual beings, progressives, races, etc.
When we stop, let go of our mental constructs of holy vs unholy, right vs wrong about the non-existent “other” (a phantom idea only in our own minds,) then we arrive in the only moment that exists ever…here and now. Here and now there is only one desire by all human beings. That is to love and to be loved. When we to talk to each other humanely, we will see that each person has the same family issues and struggles, joys and desires, and deep down a longing for belonging to a source of all of life, no matter what it is called. Try it, invite your mental “enemy” to meet, person to person with an open heart. You will find yourself meeting a part of yourself every time.
We are one spirit in many bodies. What we do to another, we do to ourselves. What we do to one, we do to all. The same is true of this earth. As spirit in human experience, we depend on our bodies which are of this earth. What we do to her, we do to ourselves. Her fate is our fate.
Now, it seems to me that we have far more vital issues to address, together in synergy and in love, than whether or not two people who love each other have the same rights as any other two people. Where does it end? When one Christian says another pair isn’t Christan enough to marry? When we outlaw marriage between male and female elders who love but cannot produce children? Which human has such authority based on love in their heart? Is it anyone reading this? Really?
Now, let’s celebrate love in all of its forms because it is all around us. Love is life itself looking for itself as love. We know there is nothing solid. There is only consciousness as energy and that energy is never lost. It only changes. So love is never lost, it only changes expression. YOU are that love as part of life and so is every other human being. Forget about dogma and creeds and social acceptance for a moment. Ask your heart and reason it out from a neutral place where you assume you are already loved and lovable.
If you do, you may just find peace, joy and love for yourself and all of life, no matter what expression of love it is. Then, for the first time and for always you may know in your heart that there can be only love between us…ALL of us. Then the shadow of fear will have be dissolved within you by the light of love. In this light you can then get on with truly loving your neighbor without conditions, as you will finally love yourself without conditions. Then you will truly see that you are loving you.
May we all love each other and our earthly home unconditionally. Now let’s get on with letting marriage be for all loving couples and work to support each other as if everyone deserves to know love.
— Rick Freeman · Aug 19, 02:51 PM · #
To those favoring legalizing same-sex marriage, please do the following:
- Stop ridiculing any one religion or any one god. Many countries, cultures, religions and races oppose same-sex marriage. – Stop getting personal and criticizing the intellectual abilities of those who you oppose. You end up sounding like a jerk. – Refrain from calling them bigots when you also want them to then support you. – Stop trying to make homosexuality look natural. It isn’t. There is no Darwinian reason for that. And don’t throw around biased research. Your science is as misleading as the science that says global warming is not caused by human actions. But the good news is, it doesn’t have to be natural to be legal under the US constitution. – Stop trying to make this sound like it is on the same level as the Civil Rights issue of the 1960s. It isn’t. – Just because marriage as we know it is losing its value, doesn’t mean you enact laws to further erode its value. If anything, politicians should be passing laws to further strengthen traditional marriage. – If you use turkey to make a sandwich, you can’t call it a chicken sandwich. So be happy with the term “Union” but demand all legal benefits. That is your right and that is what you deserve.
Best,
— sak · Aug 21, 10:09 PM · #
Jonathan Haidt has done some fascinating work explaining how liberals and conservatives see morality differently. It is very eye-opening. There are several really good online videos of him and lots of essays online. This is the link to his talk at TED: <p>http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html</p> I highly recommend him. I have a better understanding of where other people are coming from on this issue and on other issues than I did before.
— RH Macy · Aug 22, 08:31 PM · #
“Same-sex marriage opponents are no doubt failing in part because of their own inability to express a compelling rationale for their position, one that starts with the existing public understanding of what marriage is and should be and then argues that such an understanding is best served by keeping out same-sex couples.”
OK here is my compelling rationale. The existing public understanding of marriage is that the couple is officially allowed to procreate together, to conceive offspring. The understanding is that no one can tell a married couple they can’t have sex, and no one can say they can’t conceive offspring together, using their own genes. Marriage approves of the couple creating children, that’s why it obligates the couple to each other at the same time it officially allows them to have sex.
Note that it is understood that siblings and close relatives are not allowed to marry and – intuitively and equivalently – they are not allowed to procreate together. Marriage is never given to couples that are not allowed to procreate together, and there is no other official way to approve of a couple procreating except marriage.
And the second part of your challenge: same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they should not be allowed to procreate together, because that requires genetic engineering, and does not create offspring of a couple, it creates people from lab created genes.
It would be really bad public policy to allow genetic engineering to create humans, it would be unethical to create people that way, and expensive, and consume energy, and there is no justification to put people at risk of defects and harm from being created from modified genes. It would be really GOOD public policy to preserve everyone’s natural conception rights and rule out genetic engineering to create people. All people should be created equal, as the union of a man and a woman.
— John Howard · Aug 23, 04:39 AM · #