The archly conservative Washington Times covers the debate on same-sex marriage between David Blankenhorn and "open homosexual" Jonathan Rauch (the print issue ran a big picture of the latter on page 2). Excerpt:
At the [Ethics and Public Policy Center] event, Jonathan Rauch, a guest scholar at Brookings Institution and writer for the National Journal and Atlantic monthly, said Mr. Blankenhorn's arguments "lift the debate" but are ultimately flawed.
"I see same-sex marriage as flowing quite naturally and gracefully into what marriage has become today and indeed should be today: a commitment by couples to each other and their community-underscore 'and their community'-to care for each other and for their children, including non-biological children," said Mr. Rauch, an open homosexual who wrote the 2004 book "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America."
"The kind of institution we want," he says, "includes public vows, in-laws, medical obligations and yes, divorce. Marriage is very hard to get out of and should be."
Marriage, Mr. Rauch says, has four essential social functions: the rearing of children; providing a transition to stable domestic life for young adults, particularly men; providing a "safe harbor" for sex; and providing lifelong caregivers for each other.
All homosexual unions meet three out of four of these goals, and homosexual couples with children meet four out of four goals, he says.
"Gay couples and the kids they're raising won't disappear," adds Mr. Rauch. If homosexuals cannot participate in the institution, the nation runs a great risk of increasing its number of nonmarital families and of marriage becoming stigmatized as discriminatory.
"In my view, the best way to encourage marriage is to encourage marriage," he says.
15 Comments for “Making the Case”
posted by pete on
“open homosexual”?!
posted by Bobby on
“If homosexuals cannot participate in the institution, the nation runs a great risk of increasing its number of nonmarital families and of marriage becoming stigmatized as discriminatory.”
—Bullshit, we’re a tiny minority, what we do or don’t do barely affects that nation as a whole. When people supported interracial marriage, it was out of principle, not because the country would suffer if blacks were not allowed to marry whites. Anyone who supports same-sex marriage does it out of principle, not because there’s some society benefit with allowing it. It’s stupid to argue that there is.
In fact, most things related with freedom have nothing with benefiting society in any way. Drinking, smoking, eating what you want, getting a body piercing, hiring a hooker may not make society better, but they make the individual happier. That’s a more convincing argument for same-sex marriage IMO.
posted by Amicus on
pete said: “open homosexual”?!
LOL. I laughed at the same thing. Did Jon forget to wear a tie?
I count that JR is mentioned 14 paragraphs down into an article that is about 20 paragraphs long. With coverage like that you’d never know there was a “debate” going on at all …
Meanwhile, as for these 24 points, I have this, so far:
1. The reason that ?gay marriage? is viewed as a shift to a ?right of personal expression? is because there are too many people out there ?teaching? that, still. Gay marriage should accompany an understanding that one is not gay today and non-gay the next. [The failure to see this is symptomatic of the too comfortable posture that one must either oppose ?gay marriage? or accept some radical version of it, perhaps.]
2. Gay people are, right now, the most vocal people agitating on behalf of marriage. Marriage itself has come under pressure from a large number of social factors, including the increases in individual liberty associated with longer life expectancy, higher educational attainment, higher living standards, and the like. These are reasons why marriage advocates, rather than relying on the status quo, ought to think seriously about the continuous re-institutionalization of marriage, quite arguably. It has already been re-institutionalized, by the advent of serial monogamy as a ?norm?, among other things, including a ditching of hardened gender roles. At the same time, it would be an analytical mistake to think that more marriage, ?gay marriage? would reinforce unwanted trends among non-gays, such as absentee fathers or single parenthood.
3. To the extent that marriage is already seen as ?an endorsement? of how best to raise children, gay marriage would simply extend and reinforce that understanding to and for gay couples. To the extent that it is not, then that is a ?problem? for marriage in general, not for gay marriage. Since our society doesn?t regulate who can have children, the greater good seems to be served by providing more context and protection for good parenting, rather than less, even if conceptually it is accepted that children may or may not know their biological parents in all instances. The greater good is also served by securing a formal relationship future for gay and lesbian youths who deserve as much.
4. This concern is not serious, because there is little chance that any change in policy will cause people not to want their own children.
5. The longstanding trends away from rigid gender roles within marriage will not be reversed, because of or despite ?gay marriage?. The idea that rigid or stereotypical gender roles are generally required to incent active, hands-on parenting is a red herring.
6. This concern is more or less a rehash of item #3.
7. If marriage has any positive impact on parenting in terms of keeping parents together to raise children, it will continue to have it with gay marriage. The legal-social dimensions of parenthood will remain unchanged for probably upwards of 98% of the population, including hetero couples building a family with ARTs. Civil marriage is already a significant power of the State. It?s likely that people will be able to reach reasonable conclusions about how to handle the limited number of possibilities created by ARTs, just as they have with adoption and foster care and many other matters of family law.
8. The law would be facilitating the disparate and recognized private ends of marriage, just as it was set-up to do, on this topic.
9. This link occurs only because people continue to suggest that there is one. If people stop doing that and do something else, then there will be no ?likely increase?. All the same, farmer Jones can bring a lawsuit to marry his favorite cow, but that doesn?t mean it has to be accepted.
10. In some ways this is an astonishing concern, suggesting that America is or ought to be a Christian Nation. In a constitutional republic, such as our own, any group can petition for a change for any and all reasons.
11. The substance of this concern is highly formalistic and seems to be addressed by the fact that embodiment would not lose its ?determinative value? for non-gays, for those who choose to think of sexuality in those terms.
12. A forthright concern, but probably de minimus.
13. Eh. It?s just as likely that there will be a reverse causation, as gays and lesbians are more closely integrated with the communities in which they were born and raised, rather than being forced outside the fold, as they are now. For perspective, heterosexuals are talking about legalizing prostitution and the like, even in the US, and there are NO indications that ?gay marriage? considerations are related or caused these changes in attitudes whatsoever.
14. Civil marriage always has been a public institution that facilitates private life and private goals, properly understood. Layering in ?procreation? imperatives starts to pave the way for the expansion and abuse of State authority.
15. Some 40% of all marriages are reported to be civil marriages, today, and few are clamoring about the difference in opinions that so many have about what their marriage is all about or what the state?s interest is in marriage. Maybe some 2-4% of the population will be allowed civil marriage if ?gay marriage? goes ahead. Of course, some religious groups will be able to continue to propound their scripturally indefensible condemnation of gays and ?gay marriage?, with little chance that their free speech will become ?illegal?. Naturally, their private-public conflict would be eased if they found appropriate ways to bless same-sex couples.
16. Given the myriad benefits of civil marriage, it is unlikely that American Catholics, say, will stage a ?marriage strike?.
17. Orthodox religious understandings would of course still be fully facilitated by the law (even atheist philosophies and no philosophy are facilitated now, as well). Orthodox Jewish groups are admitting gays to their seminaries, just recently. Other orthodoxies that choose to hang onto stale anthropologies and scripturally indefensible injunctions probably will and should attenuate, if that is their choice. Prisoners can be legally married today, and no one orthodox feels that implies that they ?endorse? crime, so, from that perspective, the concern is a red herring and a false tradeoff. Most civil law allows divorce and forbids slavery, yet ?orthodox? groups abide.
18. If ?religious freedom? means treating gay and lesbian citizens as anything other than law abiding, tax paying, fully contributory members of society, then so be it. Otherwise, freedom to preach a Gospel of love is safe from restriction.
19. There is an undeniable risk, but failing to do anything could lead to worse outcomes, like ending tax-free status.
20. So far, from the experience of other countries and in Massachusetts, the ?back-lash? has to be whipped up. It?s not spontaneous.
21. This concern seems out of left field. Since when in the 20th century hasn?t marriage been politicized ? or even longer periods of time? (Our local theatre has a play on now about a man who had his wife committed to an insane asylum, even though there was probably nothing wrong with her. In days past, one could have his wife publicly denounced as a ?scold?. Tell me these things aren?t political ?)
22. It seems obviously in the interest of ?conservative? groups to close this gap rapidly and in advance, by adopting and advocating their own ?conservative? stance on what ?gay marriage? is about, early and often.
23. To the extent true, it provides more reason for ?conservative? groups to be swiftly forthcoming in terms of workable, civil relationship recognition, rather than continue on ?as is?.
24. If true (and it seems tenuous), then more reason to stop ?teaching? that ?gay marriage? is a generalized ?right of personal expression?, rather than an appropriate relationship recognition for gay people.
All together, most of these concerns can be met head on, without much difficulty.
posted by Brian Miller on
we’re a tiny minority, what we do or don’t do barely affects that nation as a whole
Actually, given that we’re between 5% and 10% of the population, that’s hardly “tiny.” And gay people are crucial in a number of industries and specialities without which, the economy would take a big hit.
Not to mention popular culture.
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
I think you may want to check your sources. The CDC issued a report last year that put gay men at 2.3% and bisexuals at 1.8% – women are roughly the opposite. This percentage seemed to hold whether the question was asked about identity or about attraction. Even sexual behavior seemed to mirror these numbers.
However, of interest is that only 90% identify as heterosexual or straight and there was a significant percentage that said “other” or just didn’t answer.
I think if we say “gay”, then 5 to 10% may be too high. It’s probably less than 5%. If we include all of the LGBT alphabet we may get to 5% if we assume some of the “other” or the “refuse to answer” include our greater community.
I would caution us not to exagerate our numbers. And ultimately does it really matter if we are 3% or 5% or 10%. There is no cut-off percentage for equality and civil rights.
And as you mention, though we are small we are influential – and not only in our current culture. If you look at the giants of history – those thinkers who changed science and philosophy and art and literature and medicine and many many other fields – far more than 5% of them were homosexual.
posted by Timothy on
Bobby,
I think perhaps you misunderstand what was being said. If I can presume to speak for Jonathan, I don’t think he was saying that gay folks determine what is and what is not socially acceptable.
I believe that what Jonathan was trying to point out is that it is becoming ever more clear to most people that marriage is an institution that limits its membership in a way that is exclusionary to gay people. Some people celebrate the exclusion, some lament it, but all recognize it.
What Jonathan has recognized, I believe rightly, is that those institutions who have restrictions that appear to be arbitrary to some sizeable group of citizens find themselves losing the respect that they may have once held.
Yes some will smirk at anti-gay marriage laws and gloat that “the homosexual agenda” is thwarted. But there is a growing number of people – most of them not gay themselves – who are bothered by the notion of this exclusion. And this reflects negatively overall on the institution.
Further, if alternates are established such as Civil Unions, then those who are not comfortable in excluding gays will see these as the less discriminatory alternative. Marriage can run the risk of appearing like a “white men only, no Jews” social club.
Of course, Jonathan says it much better than I. But I am fairly sure he was not speaking only of gay people when he said that a discriminatory institution loses when compared to a non-dicriminatory one.
posted by Timothy on
Marriage can run the risk of appearing like a “white men only, no Jews” social club.
Ugh… let me rewrite that.
Marriage can run the risk of having its social standing follow the patter of the “white men only, no Jews” social clubs which once were socially respected but now are considered an embarrassment.
posted by ETJB on
It would seem that anywhere between 3 – 10% of a given population is gay.
It all depends on who asks the question and how the question is asked.
posted by dalea on
These numbers yield a gay community of 12,300,000 people. Which is not unimpressive. Since almost all are adults able to vote, more than the Jewish community. The problem here is?
posted by Brian Miller on
The CDC issued a report last year that put gay men at 2.3% and bisexuals at 1.8%
The CDC’s numbers are of “self-identified” gay people — but a minority of gay people are out.
If you go by the popular “men who have sex with men” moniker, the number is closer to 20%.
I choose to go by the Kinsey study, which identifies mostly or completely gay-oriented men as about 10% of the population. It’s a lot more rigorous and less political than a study put out by a government organization — especially a Bush administration government organization.
ultimately does it really matter if we are 3% or 5% or 10%. There is no cut-off percentage for equality and civil rights.
I agree with this. Just look at the massive impact that American Jews have had on our society and culture despite being less than 2% of the US population.
posted by Timothy on
Brian,
With due respect, I suggest that the Kinsey studies – while significant and relevant – do not reflect the most recent research. They were the starting point upon which further study was built… but we probably shouldn’t stop at the starting point.
And I think you may have been hasty in your response to the CDC report. It does not at all indicate that men who have sex with men are 20%. In fact, that quote seems to be without any substantiation whatsoever (unless you have a source with which I am unfamiliar).
Also the CDC did NOT limit it’s questioning to “self-identified” gay people but also asked about attractions and sexual behaviors. For example 97% of men age 25 to 44 have at some point in their lives had sex with a female. Of this same group 6% have had sex with a male. Only 2.9% of men age 25 to 44 have had sex with a male in the past year.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/ad/361-370/ad362.htm
From these numbers it is difficult to get to your 20% figure. And assuming that there are some number of men for whom their same-sex experience was fooling around in childhood, I think we can safely assume that the number of gay men is closer to the 2.9%.
Just look at the massive impact that American Jews have had on our society and culture despite being less than 2% of the US population.
I’ve thought for some time that modeling our community on how the Jewish minority approaches politics rather than how other minorities approach politics might be worth considering.
posted by Brian Miller on
you may have been hasty in your response to the CDC report. It does not at all indicate that men who have sex with men are 20%
I’m going by the bulk of the actual research conducted over time, not just a single CDC study.
In addition, the CDC under Bush is simply not a reliable or credible research organization. This is the same CDC that deleted all references to condoms as an effective barrier to HIV transmission and that spent millions of dollars on “marriage promotion.”
Reliance on a government bastion of Republican party patronage for statistics on contemporary queer folk seems to me to be a bit short-sighted, hence my reliance on a more diverse body of work.
‘ve thought for some time that modeling our community on how the Jewish minority approaches politics rather than how other minorities approach politics might be worth considering.
Ha! I love the idea of Queer Zionism. If a “gay country” ever took form, it would quickly replace the Jewish state as the hated entity of the left and right alike.
On left-wing web sites, we’d read comparisons of the president of Gayland to Hitler, and numerous tiresome articles about the poor oppressed heterosexuals of Gayland and how they’re persecuted much worse than gays were in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
On the right, we’ll “learn” all about the Queer banking conspiracy and how it runs the media and entertainment.
However, such an approach could be potentially effective if gay people gained a sense of their own economic power. For far too long, the queer sensibility has been one of perpetual weak victimhood — i.e. we “need” ENDA and the benevolent Democrats to protect us from the big bad world.
In reality, few groups of people in American society are tougher and more adaptable than queer folk — which means that we need less “protection” and more recognition as the economic, cultural and political animals that we are. That means making our strength felt in the economic sphere (as many organizations have learned to their financial benefit) and also making the consequences of homophobic actions or attacks greater than a couple of well-dressed Washingtonians pontificating on stage at an untelevised, invitation-only, low-key Democratic party event attended by low level functionaries.
Imagine if DNC revenues dipped by $12 million after Howard Dean’s anti-gay comments on “The 700 Club,” for instance. That’s how much money gay people gave the DNC in the last campaign.
That’s how you win.
Democrats and Republicans have no problem walking away from gay people and our concerns without worry. Can you imagine them doing the same on Jewish concerns like Israel? When Hillary tried a tack of “criticizing Israel” in her run-up to her Senate campaign, she scrambled to back-track as Jewish money and support dried up. Yet when she engages in homophobic rhetoric, the queer money keeps flowing in anyway.
posted by Timothy on
I’m going by the bulk of the actual research conducted over time, not just a single CDC study.
Because I have reviewed much of the research over time, I have difficulty accepting this statement. Can you please provide a link to ANY research that supports 20%? Or can you provide links to any of this bulk of research to which you refer?
posted by Brian Miller on
Can you please provide a link to ANY research that supports 20%?
I can, but I’m tired of your nitpicking my posts (and inserting words into my mouth), so I’m going to demure at this time.
posted by Timothy on
Can you please provide a link to ANY research that supports 20%?
I can, but I’m tired of your nitpicking my posts (and inserting words into my mouth), so I’m going to demure at this time.
With all due respect, I’ll reserve belief in your claim of 20% until such time as it is substantiated. I’m sure you can respect my skepticism.