This time from Agape Press. Let's play a rousing game of "spot the missing logic".
A sociologist and writer says America cannot afford to say no to traditional marriage. Brad Wilcox, co-author of The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals (Spence Publishing, 2006), believes how U.S. society defines marriage can affect everything from the nation's economy to its citizens' individual rights.
Wilcox, a sociologist from the University of Virginia, is encouraged to note that 19 U.S. states have adopted pro-traditional marriage amendments to their state constitutions, and nine more states will vote on similar issues this November. He says marriage relates to every aspect of a nation's life, whether social, economic, or political.
"We know that the success of marriage has a lot to do with how children turn out and has to do with things like criminal activity, teenage pregnancy and child poverty," Wilcox observes, "so if we're concerned about things like crime rates, teenage girls getting pregnant, and kids living in poverty, then we should be concerned about the health and the strength of marriage."
The sociology expert says strong families directly correspond to a strong economy, low crime, and low government interference. On the other hand, he asserts, weak families result in a weak economy, high crime, and other social problems that result in a welfare state and undermine a Republic form of government. Hence, failing to keep American families strong will be detrimental in several ways, he insists.
In debate terms, we would say that this argument has no causal link. He says that it's good that states have moved against gay marriage because marriage and family are good and necessary, but there's no causal link between allowing gay marriage and damaging marriage and families. If gays are allowed to get married, are straight families suddenly going to stop raising their children and allow them to become delinquents? Are they suddenly going to quit their jobs so their kids are raised in poverty? The list of bad things that come from "weak families" simply has no rational relationship to allowing gay marriage.
To use another debate term, this argument is easily "turned" or "flipped" in two obvious ways. First, if stable marriages and families are so valuable in terms of raising emotionally balanced, healthy children - and I fully agree that they are - then doesn't the same thing hold true for the millions of children in this country who have gay parents? Second, by taking the stigma out of gay relationships we make it far less likely that a gay person is going to marry a straight person as "cover", a situation that has historically destabilized and destroyed many families
This is the argument I've made many times, that social conservatives should be the first ones supporting gay marriage. They should be the first ones in line encouraging gay people to form stable, lifelong partnerships rather than transient, temporary relationships. This would be immeasurably healthier for all involved, including the children involved. If stable, permanent relationships are emotionally beneficial for children, why does this count only for straight people?
Ah, but there is the secret. These people really don't care whether gay people are happier, healthier or involved in stable relationships. To them, all that matters is that homosexuality is sinful, evil, abnormal, and so forth. As far as they're concerned, there is no such thing as a stable and healthy gay relationship - a claim that must seem quite absurd to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually in stable and healthy gay relationships.
But these people aren't part of the reality-based community, they're a part of the "faith"-based community, where reality is apparently whatever they declare it to be. And here's the reality that they seek to ignore: there are millions of gay Americans and a sizable portion of them have children. There's nothing they can do about it. The courts will no longer let them impose jail time on such people or take their children away (though much still needs to be done on that front, especially when it comes to foster kids).
Would they rather have those children raised in a home with a stable, long-term relationship with two parents who care for them? Marriage really does build stability for a child in a thousand different ways, from access to healthcare to more secure financial planning options to the emotional security of having two parents that can balance each other's weak points. Stable families really are more conducive to our physical and emotional well being, but this is just as true of the kids of gay parents as the kids of straight parents.
If social conservatives really cared about the health of those kids rather than about the imposition of their simplistic version of moral purity, they would be encouraging the extension of the privileges and responsibilities of marriage to gay couples. There is no rational reason why this would "weaken" straight marriages and every reason to believe that it would strengthen the families and improve the well being of untold numbers of children with gay parents.
- Log in to post comments
It strikes me that 90% of the arguments against gay marriage (ie almost all the ones that aren't Santorum-insane) are, as you suggest, arguments in favour of gay marriage, and are actually arguments against divorce. Funny that you don't get presidents pushing for constitutional amendments on divorce.
Apparently the only thing preventing millions of heterosexual spouses from abandoning their spouses and children, in favor of the temptation of homosexual possibilities, is the intervention of the state. After all, who would stay in a heterosexual marriage if a homosexual marriage were suddenly legal?
Work with me, I'm trying to understand the logic.
"First, if stable marriages and families are so valuable in terms of raising emotionally balanced, healthy children"
I agree, too. So does everyone I know.
If this so self evident, why do we need to power of the state to compel it?
If the religious right and social conservatives are really concerned about families and children why don't they work to save the 50% (including among their own flock) that result in divorce?
You and Dan Savage. You should read his book "The Comittment" if you have a chance....makes exactly that argument, and is damn funny besides.
Several years ago, before I understood the terms of this debate, I was channel flipping and came across a program featuring a variety of "Pro-Marriage" speakers. I watched for about half an hour, as each speaker explained why gay people should NOT be allowed to marry. In my naivte, I assumed that the PRO Marriage side just hadn't made it to the podium yet.
Although the forum looked as if it were meant to be a political one, it gradually dawned on me that every single "family value" argument assumed the audience was a particular type of Christian -- and that homosexuality was a type of criminal activity. Ah, I get it. Not politics at all. Just another tent revival speaking to the converted.
I think the actual argument must be something along the lines that a society that recognizes gay marriage is somehow defective, and that such recognition demeans the value and sacredness of heterosexual marriage. By analogy, they must be arguing that the recognition of homosexual marriage as legitimate marriage damages the notion of marriage in the same way recognizing a doctorate in biology from the Institute for Creation Research damages a legitimate credential.
I don't think it's a good argument, but I'm not sure you've construed it correctly.
I agree with you fully.
Jim Lippard wrote:
But even stated in the manner that you stated it, my argument remains valid - there simply is no causal link between gay marriage and the damage to traditional marriages. The ICR has been putting out biology degrees for a couple decades now. That's irritating to real biologists, of course, but it hasn't prevented any of them from continuing as real biologists. Likewise, the existence of gay marriages in no way changes the reality of straight marriages. So arguing that straight marriages are good as an argument against gay marriage is still an argument lacking a crucial bit of missing logic - the part that connects the premise and the conclusion.
Jim Lippard wrote:
"By analogy, they must be arguing that the recognition of homosexual marriage as legitimate marriage damages the notion of marriage in the same way recognizing a doctorate in biology from the Institute for Creation Research damages a legitimate credential."
Yes, that's a good analogy, but I don't see how that negates Ed's point. For the anti-gay-marriage crowd, a straight marriage is really defined as one which unites two people under God. Whether the marriage is happy or unhappy, healthy or unhealthy, working or not working, are secular evaluations which won't touch this. If it's not a marriage under the laws of God, it's not a real marriage, period.
So using talking points about the secular benefits of marriage is disingenous on their part. The causal link is not between gay marriage and damage to *actual* marriages. It's really between secularism and damage to society.
I have asked people who are against gay marriage if allowing legal marriage between atheists also "undermines traditional marriage" and should be stopped. After all, there is no commitment to God in these marriages, and yet they take place.
Their responses were interesting. Most of them said something along the lines of "well, it should still be legal because the atheists MIGHT convert someday."
I think both Ed and Jim are right. Let me try a slightly different take. Ultimately, the argument is not over whether or not gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage. I think opponents of gay marriage are deliberately presenting a false argument. They are afraid they can't get away with their real objection.
The real issue is simply that a society that legitimizes gay marriages sanctions gay relationships, and that is intolerable to the religious right.
Of course, if you are against laws banning gay marriage, then you should be against laws banning polygamy (as I am). This is a point of hypocrisy for many defendants of personal choice.
Wasn't it ironic that the people who didn't want marriage defined by homosexuals were the ones inscribing it into law and defining it for everyone else? I would rather let people decide for themselves rather than the government.
That's a superb point. I'll have to use that in future.
Martin Striz wrote:
I know some who make a serious and principled distinction between gay marriage and polygamy. Jon Rowe does so, for instance. I don't agree with it, but I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical. It depends on the substance of the arguments for gay marriage.
Martin Striz | March 14, 2006 01:12 PM
Of course, if you are against laws banning gay marriage, then you should be against laws banning polygamy...
No, not necessarily.
First, the legal issue is not "gay marriage." The legal issue is whether the state should be permitted to refuse to recognize relationships between same-sex couples on the same basis that it recognizes relationships between opposite sex couples. The "equal protection" issue should be obvious.
If a state wishes to refuse to recognize relationships between same sex couples couples on the same basis that it recognizes relationships between opposite sex couples, under equal protection jurisprudence, it would be required to at least provide a "rational basis" for the discrimination. In virtually every state court that has considered the issue, the state has trotted out the "procreation" or "child-rearing" argument, which is so preposterous as to not be addressing in detail.
The issues regarding polygamy are far different. First, there is no obvious equal protection issue. And, even if an equal protection issue could be contrived, the state would still have the possibility to show that there is a "rational basis" for prohibiting polygamy. Moreover, the pro-polygamy advocates have a problem in that the US Supreme Court, in the 1879 case of Reynolds vs. United States, adjudicated the polygamy issue. That case involved a federal law against polygamy in the Mormon Territory (Utah), and most of the relevant portion of the opinion was directed to Mormon's freedom of religion, but part of the opinion towards the end addressed the equal protection issue--although not in that language. The Court gave essentially credence to evidence that there was a rational basis for the prohibition against polygamy. People who want to use an equal protection argument have that case to overcome. It is not insurmountable, but it would be a long row to hoe.
Also, I'll end by pointing out that issues regarding polygamy do not rest on same-sex marriage. Issues regarding polygamy rest just as well on opposite-sex marriage. These issues regarding same sex marriage are nothing more than shams.
Ed
Good post. Let me rain on it, just sprinkles.
Yes there is and they're doing it, so far, quite successfully.
...for now.
In their minds a fundamentalist "Christian nation" will inherently fix the health of those kids. With love.
Generally, over time nationally, our side has been slowly losing political momentum and their's slowly gaining it. These trend lines are worrying. Add to that worry the evidence that we're being out-thought in the political arena. An example is the real mess that was made of the gay marriage issue during the last election. Sastra is correct -- it's all talking points.
I'd recommend to all Margret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale", and if you read it when it was published in 1986[?], a reread. As far as I know, it's the most realistic, and so scariest, look at a right-wing religious takeover of the U.S. OK, the only one I know of. And from an excellent writer. [At one point, literally overnight, all the credit/financial cards of all women cease to function. Taliban in IT!]
SkookumPlanet wrote:
I disagree. In fact, I think the opposite is clearly true. Even 20 years ago, the notion of gay marriage was unthinkable. Who would have seriously proposed civil union legislation even that recently? Now we've seen several other nations legalize gay marriage in one form or another, we've seen one state legalize it and two additional states create civil unions with most if not all of the same legal protections. And the polls show that 2/3 of Americans approve of civil unions in some form. Add to that the basic demographic data, which shows that young people are strongly for gay marriage and I think the trends are not only clearly on our side, I think gay marriage is virtually inevitable in this country. The spasm of activity in some states to ban gay marriages is, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, signs of a movement in its death throes. 20 years from now, we will have gay marriage in some form in the United States. 40 years from now, we will look back on it and wonder what on earth the big deal was, just as we do now with the overturning of laws against interracial marriage.
The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that one requires we change it from a man and a woman to "Any combination of two" while the other would require a significant restructuring of all aspects of marriage law AND no matter how you structured it you probably wouldn't even satisfy half of those that want it.
Guess which one is polygamy?
Will your version of polygamy allow one woman-many men? Will it be line marriage, ala Heinlein? Will it allow people to just divorce part of the relationship but remain married to other parts? How will new people be added? Will everyone have to approve it or will only one person be making those decisions? How will the estate be divided up if someone in it dies without a will? Can you be in multiple polygamous relationships at a time, forming a collosal chain of interconnection? If it's going to be a contract drawn up on a case by case basis, how will insurance companies decide what a 'spouse' is for the purpose of benefits? How will child support work? Alimony?
Ed
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant "generally" of all politics, way beyond gay marriage, even gay, issues.
I agree much has been accomplished. I only meant to suggest that the momentum is shifting in the U.S.
I hope you're correct, but I'm disturbed enough that I think the right could corrupt even the Supreme Court. The combo of the radical right's faith in their view and control of the U.S. and their willingness to buy votes from the evangelical right is a volatile combination.
It's too long for here, but I heard info that the anti-gay-marriage initiative referendum in Ohio was finally pushed because polling showed it would turn out hundreds of thousands of pro-Bush voters who wouldn't otherwise vote.
Carl Rove went to George W. with statistics that showed if Bush ran, he could win the Texas governorship with the Christian evangelical vote alone! The rest is history.
AgapePress has been reading Maggie Gallagher's crap on MarriageDebate.com or .org... can't be bothered to look up her stupid site.
There is an interesting article on a pro-polygamy movenent within some evangelical groups in this week's Newsweek. Many people in this movement are advocating polygamy while simultaneously opposing same-sex marriage. There's a website called TruthBearer.org that promotes this position. This was all news to me.
For crying out loud!! When will these people ever wake up? The teenage girls getting pregnant, the children living in poverty, and the teen criminals running rampant on city streets today are, by and large, the product of the "traditional marriage" they are attempting to protect. The number of children raised in gay families is very small in comparison to these "problem" children, and miniscule in terms of the minor population in this country. How in the hell can that be blamed on gay marriage. When are they going to try to fix their own problems instead of blaming them on someone else?
The sociology expert says strong families directly correspond to a strong economy, low crime, and low government interference. On the other hand, he asserts, weak families result in a weak economy, high crime, and other social problems that result in a welfare state and undermine a Republic form of government.
So how does that fit with the statistic that the divorce rate has held a remarkably consistent 50 %rate (as noted above) throughout the boom times of Reagan and Clinton, as well as the bust times of both Bush's?
in theory, the more successful the economy, the more likely someone may feel it financially safe to walk away from a broken or abusive marriage...
raj wrote:
The issues regarding polygamy are far different. First, there is no obvious equal protection issue.
The way they are the same is that they both have to do with individual choice. The question is whether the government should have the power to sanction who you get to live with and sleep with, which supercedes equal protection issues, because it questions the whole system.
If you are for gay and/or straight marriage but against polygamy, then you must defend why you think you have the right to interfere with people's lives like that.
Funny that you don't get presidents pushing for constitutional amendments on divorce
Atually, while nothing about const. amendments has been said, he has talked a lot about laws to "strengthen" marriage. As I understand it some of the repub talk in that vein has included some incredibley regressive changes to womens rights. Ricky Santorum, among many, has a low opinion of "draconian" domestic violence laws. (I use draconian - not him, though his language would imply it)
Trust me they would love to change divorce laws too. A lot of them would be thrilled to end no fault divorce.
My stance still sits in my belief that the state should stop recognizing marriage. Anyone who wants the benifits afforded married couples now should just get a civil union and that should be the only legal standard.
Martin Striz | March 14, 2006 11:02 PM
I said: The issues regarding polygamy are far different. First, there is no obvious equal protection issue.
You said: The way they are the same is that they both have to do with individual choice.
Present that argument to a court, and see if it agrees. The mere fact that I am an advocate for same-sex marriage does not require me to also advocate on behalf of polygamous marriage--people who believe that states should recognize polygamous marriages are perfectly capable of arguing in favor of their belief. I'll let you know, though, that we have discussed this issue on the NYTImes gay rights board off and on for a number of years, and it seems to me that there are "rational bases" for the state refusing to recognize polygamous relationships, one of which is mentioned in Reynolds vs. United States, which I cited above.
I should note your position regarding "individual choice" has nothing to do with the same-sex marriage issue--the issue would also arise given the fact that states currently recognize relationships of opposite sex couples. The point is that the "polygamy" issue does not arise merely because a state might decide to recognize relationships of same-sex couples. That is a completely orthogonal issue.
You said The question is whether the government should have the power to sanction who you get to live with and sleep with, which supercedes equal protection issues, because it questions the whole system.
In point of fact, the issues that you raise " who you get to live with and sleep with" has nothing to do with marriage. People can live together without benefit of marriage--and more than a few people do. Unmarried people can also have sex with each other. They do not need government imprimatur in order to do so. Government sanctioned marriage establishes legal relationships where none existed before--with a whole host of rights, privileges and obligations--and that is the difference. And that is why--referring to Treban's later comment--the state is not going to get out of the "marriage" business any time soon.
Regarding the view that those supporting gay marriage should also support polygamy, I do not agree as I do not see gay marriage an issue of free choice - gays are not permitted to marry solely because of their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a characteristic over which people have no control, in the same way that non-white people have no control over their skin colour. Polygamy, however is, theoretically at least, a matter of choice. Therefore, to legalise gay marriage is to remove discrimination based on a characteristic over which a person has no control, whilst laws for or against polygamy are not about dicrimination in the true sense of the word (religion is volutary choice also). The discussion around polygamy should be a debate about the way members of a society wish their society to function, not about the nature of discrimination.
If conservatives are so concerned about irreparably dammaging children by them growing up in what they see as weak homes then the solution would not be to ammend the constitution against gay marriage. Wouldn't the solution be to ammend the constitution to prevent people from having children out of wedlock in the first place? I agree that a strong two parent home (gay or straight)is the best for children. So in addition, married couples should have to be licensed and not just of the heterosexual persuasion. That way we can be sure that the children in our country are being raised by competent people. Not people who are going to have kids and leave them for television, computers, nannies, and schools to raise. Banning gay marraige would have no effect on the strength of american families. And to blame the failing strength of families on homsexuals is ignoring the real problem of families who have become to busy to spend time with eachother.