A friend of mine [1] posted up a link to "A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other" [2] and asked that it be read without knee-jerking. I respect his opinions on things, so I did. My reply got a little too large to merely be a "comment" so here it is.
[1] http://www.livejournal.com/users/cuddlyd00m/
[2] http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html
The idea here is to set up marriage as a pilliar of society and then to claim that altering the institution will bring it tumbling down. It uses previous social reforms to build up a case. It also argues that one of the primary arguments for gay marriage is that it will not effect traditional marriage.
I am a proponent of gay marriage so my reply is obviously supporting one side, can't help it. I'm going to go after the logic of the argument rather than try to refuse the facts it uses with that logic. Since the author is on the fence, hopefully this will help to refine the argument... my obvious biases aside.
* Straw men: simpatico
The links between the previous social reforms and gay marriage are drawn, in part, by the arguments made in their defense.
The "moderate conservative" voice in the article is logical and uses multi-sentence arguments. The disenting voices all blurt "That's rediculous!" along with a single sentence emotional argument. They are a Simplicius, a straw man to beat against.
Furthermore, since we're using the argument to draw a tie from, say, the hated income tax to gay marriage and the argument is simplistic, I can use that same logic to draw a line between gun control and gay marriage.
"That's rediculous! The American government would never try to take away my gun!"
Then I talk about what might have happened if the 2nd ammendment had not been there, much in the same way the cap on income tax is not, and use that to beat on the straw man some more.
* The 60s
Something I can't swallow is that in a time of general social and economic upheval in America (late 50s - 70s: oil crisis, civil rights, vietnam, sexual revolution, woman's lib, etc...) that one can make any cut and dry statements about the success or failure of welfare, public housing or pretty much anything going on in that period.
* That's how it was always done.
Since the article uses analogy to make its point i will make one of my own.
"marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history."
In this case you're defining "marriage" to mean between a man and a woman. Let's push back the clock to, oh, 1850. And let's define marriage using the issues of the times: race. Marriage in 1850 was, and had always been, between a man and a woman of the same race. Carefully selected throughout history. Bedrock of society. For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about in 1850, is between a man and a woman of the same race.
As you poke holes in that argument for 1850 you poke holes in the modern one because they are the same argument, different minority.
So just continuing to do what we've always done isn't necessarily the best way to go. Which leads us to...
* Marriage or partnership?
To quote:
"Marriage matters. It is better for the kids; it is better for the adults raising those kids; and it is better for the childless people in the communities where those kids and adults live. Marriage reduces poverty, improves kids outcomes in all measurable ways, makes men live longer and both spouses happier."
I agree with all that, more or less. The interesting thing to note is there's nothing in there about requring the couple be a man and a woman. Is it really *marriage* that's so important or is it life-long partnership?
Humans do better with partners. The longer standing and stronger the partnership the better they'll do. The partnership can be marriage (whatever your definition), business, family, etc. Partners allow you to share the load, provide advice and a 2nd opinion, circle the wagons when things go wrong, someone to prop you up when you're in financial trouble and a safe place to relax after the stress of the day.
So is it traditional marriage we should be defending to the point of restricting other systems because "that's the way its always been done" or should we be looking at root causes? What societal need does traditional marriage fill and what other systems can fill that role?
* Causes vs sparks
Did the loosening of divorce laws cause more divorce or did it simply allow a vent for an existing disatisfation with the American system of marriage? Previously if you were dissatisfied with your marriage (vs being provably abused) you had to grin and bear it... and maybe have a quiet affair on the side.
Losening divorce laws were not the CAUSE of more divorce, they were merely a spark. Its no coincidence that divorce laws losened up right in the middle of the sexual revolution and the assertion of the woman's lib movement. Divorce law changes didn't cause woman's lib, woman's lib caused divorce law changes. What fueled woman's lib? Part of it was (and is) a general disatisfaction with traditional marriage. If the divorce laws failed to change to reflect people's desires the disatisfaction would have vented itself in other ways also not conducive to a happy family (affairs, passive-agreesiveness, arguments, runaway wives).
The fact that marriage was already showing signs of weakness before the laws were changed suggests that the idea that we should continue to do what we've always done before because "it works" isn't quite so true.
* Marriage destroyed?
The lines are drawn to show how apparently innocent changes to social institutions "destroyed" previously existing ones. As mentioned above I find some of the associations very shaky. Additionally I can't find a direct argument as to how gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage. Will it have repercusions? Yes. Will it alter traditional marriage? Yes. If nothing else it already has as people are questioning "what is marriage". These are genies you cannot put back in the bottle.
Which brings us to the final point.
* Change and social upheval
And here is the final point of the article, that the arugment is changes to the marriage laws will have no effect on folks in traditional marriages.
This is a straw man. It already has made changes even if the laws have not yet followed. You can't turn back the clock on gay rights any more than you could turn back the clock on the civil rights. A significant minority of the citizens of the United States are gay and are getting more and more open about it. This isn't something you can legislate away. Gay marriage laws will not CAUSE a change to society, that change has already happened and is continuing to happen. The law can only attempt to track society's changes as well as it can.
When the laws fall out of sync with reality a tension arises. Let that tension build up for too long, say 100 years, and you get an explosion, say the civil rights movement of the 60s. We're still feeling the repurcusions of the changes to civil rights law. But imagine what it would have been like if the laws hadn't changed because a segregated society had worked in the past and damnit, its going to work now. Also imagine what it would have been like if we desegregated in the early 1900s, as the trend was going, rather than rolling back the clock in during the Wilson administration. Imagine eliminating two generations of bitter people living under segregation laws.
Making the marriage laws better track societal realities is a tension relief. Relieve that tension early and the repurcusions will be mild as people experiment with their new legal freedoms. Take too long, let the laws fall too far out of touch with reality, and you wind up with an embittered minority and when the adjustment comes, its a big one with long ripples through our future.
* Summary
Watch yourself for...
- using straw men
- oversimplifying complex historical issues
- confusing existing societial tension being allowed to vent via a change in the law and changes in law causing the tension and associated venting.
Civil unions
schwern on 2005-04-06T04:16:05
[Just to be clear, I'm not railing at you at all pudge.]
I've head this one before. Government does legal "unions" between two people, leave "marriage" to the churches who are free to do whatever they want. Church and state remain separated as God and the Founding Fathers intended.
I like this idea. Anyone can get hitched to anyone else and if they want a marriage they can go to whatever church will take them to put a preacher's stamp on it.
However, I have seen this used as a hypocritical excuse for people to vote against gay marriage resolutions. "I'm voting against because I don't believe government should say what marriage is". Ok, but meanwhile they are. And isn't it convienient that the existing definition is in your favor? As long as marriage is a legal thing, might as well patch it up as best we can.
EITHER the government gets out of the marriage business OR you put the 14th amendment into marriage.
Re:Civil unions
pudge on 2005-04-06T04:56:05
However, I have seen this used as a hypocritical excuse for people to vote against gay marriage resolutions. "I'm voting against because I don't believe government should say what marriage is". Ok, but meanwhile they are. And isn't it convienient that the existing definition is in your favor? As long as marriage is a legal thing, might as well patch it up as best we can.
I can understand disliking it, and while it may be hypocritical for some people, it is not necessarily hypocritical.
I would not vote against gay marriage resolution because government should get out of it, I would vote against it because it is an arbitrary change to a fundamental American institution that much if not most of the country is against. I know it is a bit counterintuitive to be against it because people are against it, but my view on a lot of these social issues -- as a conservative:-) -- is that change should not come until society is ready for it, and it is not.
It's sorta like how Lincoln was against the legalization of slavery, even though he was against slavery, even though he thought whites superior to blacks. I am against the legalization of gay marriage, even though I am against the discrimination of gays, even though I think homosexuality is a sin. Heh.
As to the arbitrary thing, it's not that there's not good reason to open it up, but what else would that lead to? What about more than two partners? I am not necessarily opposed to that either, but each move is arbitrary. It's changing based on our changing views, not on the essential nature of the institution. I dislike that as a matter of principle, and that combined with the fact that society really is not ready for it at this time... that's my big reason to oppose it.
I would likely also vote against any effort to modify the Constitution, state or federal, to prohibit gay marriage. On the other hand, I might vote for one just to prevent the judiciary from imposing it. If the legislature did it, that's one thing, but the judiciary should not, in my opinion (then again, it depends on what your state constitution says).
That said, sure, people use hypocritical reasons, including that one, on both sides. But just because some people use a hypocritical reason doesn't mean that everyone who has the view is using it hypocritically. Although, you could say Lincoln's view, and mine, are hypocritical. Perhaps. Sometimes life is complicated that way.
Re:Civil unions
TeeJay on 2005-04-06T08:00:52
If your religion see's gay marriage as a sin then its simple, your religon won't hold gay marriages.Shouldn't stop people who disagree having a gay marriage. If marriage is good, then allowing gay marriage is good.
You can't have it both ways - either its religious and a matter for any given church based on its beliefs, or its secular and a matter for the government based on equality and basic human rights.
Life isn't that complicated, either you are appeasing bigots or you are a bigot, pick one and admit it. Don't pretend its a complex moral issue, when it's simple. You could argue american society isn't ready for guns, stock markets or the internet in much the same way.
Re:Civil unions
pudge on 2005-04-06T15:05:58
You clearly aren't understanding my position. Please go back and read the URL I originally posted, again.Tyrany of the majority
schwern on 2005-04-06T10:18:36
I would not vote against gay marriage resolution because government should get out of it, I would vote against it because it is an arbitrary change to a fundamental American institution that much if not most of the country is against.This is a fine example of "tyranny of the majority", a danger in democracy acknowledged by the founding fathers and something our Constitution tries to defend against. When an overwhelming majority exists (for example, heterosexuals) they can use that majority to take (or in this case, keep) citzen rights away from minorities (for example, homosexuals). This is exactly the point where the judiciary steps in to invoke the 14th amendment. That's what they're there for. That's their role.
The 14th amendment doesn't say "that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens except those which make you feel a little uneasy or those whose privileges we've been abridging for a long time". Its all citizens. The judiciary isn't making new law, its keeping us honest.
Because marriage is a priviledge. Its not just "we record that you are hitched". It imparts special legal status for all involved: special tax rules, special property rules and special status on the children of the coupling. You could try saying "gays can have a civil union which imparts all the same legal priviledges as a marriage, but we still call a union between a man and woman a marriage" but that's Seperate But Equal, a concept which has long since been shot down by the courts.
When the majority gets to decide when the minority is ready for change... well, things aren't likely to change. In this case its even worse: the majority is deciding when the majority is ready for change, because nobody rational is arguing that gay folks aren't ready to get married. Its everybody else that's having trouble with the idea. Homosexuality isn't some fad that's going to go away in a few years.
Furthermore, a lot of folks are tossing around the term "fundamental American institution". How does one define such a list? Is marriage mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? No. In the Constitution? No. Is male/female marriage something which makes us unique in the world? No. Well what is a fundamental American instituion? Things like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That all men are created equal. That no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Little things like that.
I can point out another fundamental American institutions. Slavery, I'm sorry "other Persons" -- that's mentioned a whole bunch in the Constitution. Good ol' discrimination against blacks, a fundamental American institution. Took nearly 100 years for the majority to decide to start fixing that one, and they only squeaked that in because half the country was knocked out of the legislature at the time. Took another 100 years to finish, and a lot of that came not from the majority of voters but from the judiciary and the executive. Think we should take another 200 years to give gays full rights?
As to the arbitrary thing, it's not that there's not good reason to open it up, but what else would that lead to? What about more than two partners? I am not necessarily opposed to that either, but each move is arbitrary.What else would that lead to? I dunno, crazy, non-traditional, unamerican things like a black man marrying a white woman. Its a bit of a low blow but the parallels are too strong not to make it. Was the move to legalize interracial marriage, not a popular one at the time either, also arbitrary? If so, should we have waited until the majority was comfortable with the idea? Would they ever have become comfortable without having to live with it and see that society did not in fact collapse? If it was not arbitrary, why not and how does the reasoning differ from homosexual marriage?
Finally, even if it is an arbitrary change is it right to deny full citizenship to a minority, not because you're worried that the change itself will cause a problem, but because some possible "flood gate of radical change" it might open up in some non-existent future set of laws?
I can argue against anything with that sort of logic. Freedom of religion? No way! If we let in the Buddists before you know it we'll be allowing baby eating Satanists!!!
Re:Tyrany of the majority
pudge on 2005-04-06T16:11:46
When an overwhelming majority exists (for example, heterosexuals) they can use that majority to take (or in this case, keep) citzen rights away from minorities (for example, homosexuals).
If you think civil marriage is a right, that would make some sense. As I do not think civil marriage is a right -- for anyone -- I can't really comment on this. As you say when you try to debunk the idea that marriage is a "fundamental American institution," is marriage mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? No. In the Constitution? No. etc.
The judiciary isn't making new law, its keeping us honest.
From your perspective, yes. From mine, no.
You could try saying "gays can have a civil union which imparts all the same legal priviledges as a marriage, but we still call a union between a man and woman a marriage" but that's Seperate But Equal, a concept which has long since been shot down by the courts.
This is where I think your argument breaks down. Of what special "right" is a label? If black people could drink from the exact same drinking fountain as white people, but we simply called it a "drinking geyser" instead of a "drinking fountain" while they were using it, I doubt the courts would have found that to be unconstitutional. Silly, perhaps, but you already know I think calling what we have "civil marriage" is silly.
Yes, the analogy is imperfect, but what other examples do we have? Is there an example apart from civil marriage where someone had all the rights of everyone else, but it was simply called something else, and the courts found it to be separate but equal? I can't think of one.
Furthermore, a lot of folks are tossing around the term "fundamental American institution". How does one define such a list?... Is male/female marriage something which makes us unique in the world?
I was not talking about "male/female" marriage as a fundamental American institution. If I had, then I would not have talked about it changing it, but destroying it: changing a fundamental American institution of male/female marriage to include homosexuals would destroy that institution and create another.
And by fundamental, I merely meant what is self-evident fact: that marriages are the cornerstone of our society and our government. Our children are raised, mostly and ideally, within marriages. Our smallest non-individual governmental unit is the family, the spouses, which sets its own rules and doles out its own punishments and rewards. I do not exclude homosexuals from this; my language and thoughts are not gender-specific.
Quite the contrary, in fact. It's why I want to have civil unions for all, and civil marriages for none. Government should not grant marriage/union just because people want it. Again, it is not a right. The reason government recognizes marriage/union is because it is in the best interests of society to do so, because marriage is important to society and protecting it is therefore worthwhile.
I believe a much better argument to make on behalf of gay marriage is not the discrimination angle, but the benefit to society angle. Pooling of resources, helping each other, being legally bound to each other, it's all good for society.
What else would that lead to? I dunno, crazy, non-traditional, unamerican things like a black man marrying a white woman. Its a bit of a low blow but the parallels are too strong not to make it.
The parallels are strong, but so are the dissimilarities. Most important is that the societal definition of marriage did not exclude it. They believed it should be discouraged and illegal, but that is not the same thing. Most would not have said a black person marrying a white person of the opposite sex was not marriage. They would have said it was an abomination or should be illegal, not that it was not marriage.
So the definition of marriage did not change when anti-miscegenation laws were repealed, what changed was merely what sort of marriages were acceptable. We still disallow marriages between siblings and first cousins in our law; should we choose to accept them, it would not constitute a change in our societal definition of "one man, one woman."
should we have waited until the majority was comfortable with the idea? Would they ever have become comfortable without having to live with it and see that society did not in fact collapse?
I think they certainly would have accepted it without it being forced on them, yes. There were far more people in favor of gay marriage in 2000 than in 1990; why do you think that is? If we need it to be forced on people for them to accept it, and it was not forced on them, how did they come to accept it? And while the lines kept going up, they began to go back down once the courts stepped in. Funny that.
I think the courts stepping in was the worst thing to happen to the cause of gay marriage. I remember when the verdict was announced in anti-sodomy case in the Supreme Court, I said that if activists tried to use this to force gay marriage through the courts, there will be a backlash that will do more harm than good to their cause. It was easy to see it would happen, and it did.
Finally, even if it is an arbitrary change is it right to deny full citizenship to a minority
Again, I don't believe anyone is being denied full citizenship.
not because you're worried that the change itself will cause a problem, but because some possible "flood gate of radical change" it might open up in some non-existent future set of laws?
You misunderstood what I meant by arbitrary. I am not saying that gay marriage might lead us to further radical change, but that certain justifications for gay marriage might do that. That is, the slippery slope I aim to fight against is not radical changes to our marriage laws, but in making laws that are not well-considered.
For example, I am against a current move in WA to increase taxes on cigarettes, not because I am opposed to an increase in taxes on cigarettes, but because it is being done irresponsibly: the legislature needs more revenue so it just looks to see who it can increase taxes on without upsetting very many people. It, to me, is an example of a very poorly considered law, and sets (well, continues) a terrible precedent, where taxes only need to fit some narrow criteria to be justified: tax because you can.
And this terrible precedent has led us to a place where now the legislature is trying to increase tax on doctors. Doctors. You see, medical insurance causes most of our financial problems, so recoup some of that from the doctors. Who just pass it on to the consumer. But because doctors are a small constitutency, and most voters don't think "hey this hurts me more than the doctors," they don't suffer political consequences. They tax because they can.
And what I am worried about is not that this opens the door to all sorts of terrible marriages I may disagree with, but that it sets the bar in a terrible place. "We should be married because we love each other, because it is our right, even though that right has never been enumerated anywhere." What other potential marriages could fit that description? Why not first cousins? Why not three or more spouses? Why not two friends who live together merely wish to take advantage of prevailing marriage law? How does your justification for gay marriage exclude any of those things?
Perhaps you think neither *should* be excluded. That's fine, but it's why I want to get rid of civil marriage and have civil unions. We are changing the definition of marriage such that it no longer fits -- either now, or in the future if we continue down the path -- what society's definition is. They are different, so let's call them something different.
Maybe we *should* allow those things. But we must consider first the direct consequences the arguments have. And I think putting the focus on the individual marriage unit instead of society, where it belongs -- again, as civil marriage is recognized not for the benefit of the individual marriage unit, but for the benefit of society -- sets a terrible precedent.
I can argue against anything with that sort of logic. Freedom of religion? No way! If we let in the Buddists before you know it we'll be allowing baby eating Satanists!!!
We can simply outlaw baby-eating. It's not a problem. This sort of logic might be applied to disallowing marriages between first cousins and siblings (or with children, which I didn't mention above because it is nonconsensual by our standards, as baby-eating is), but not to much else.
