Opponents of marriage equality have recently been shifting somewhat away from the "bad for children" argument in favor of what we might call the "definitional" argument: same-sex "marriage" is not really marriage, and thus legalizing it would amount to a kind of lie or counterfeit.
As National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president Maggie Gallagher puts it: "Politicians can pass a bill saying a chicken is a duck and that doesn't make it true. Truth matters."
The definitional argument isn't new, although its resurgence is telling. Unlike the "bad for children" argument, it's immune from empirical testing: it's a conceptual point, not an empirical one.
Suppose we grant for argument's sake that marriage has been male-female pretty much forever. (For now, I'm putting aside anthropological evidence of same-sex unions in history, as well as the great diversity of marriage forms even within the male-female paradigm.) All that would follow is that this is how marriage HAS BEEN. It would not follow that marriage cannot become something else.
At this point opponents are likely to retort that changing marriage in this way would be bad because [insert parade of horrible consequences here]. But if they do, they've in effect conceded the impotence of the definitional argument. The definitional argument is supposed to be IN ADDITION TO the consequentialist arguments, not a proxy for them. Otherwise, we could just stay focused on the consequentialist arguments.
What Gallagher and her cohorts are contending is that EVEN IF we were to take the consequentialist arguments off the table, there will still be the problem that same-sex marriage promotes a lie, much like calling a chicken a duck.
Let's pause to consider a seemingly silly question: apart from consequences, what's the problem with calling a chicken a duck-or more precisely, with using the word "chicken" to refer to both chickens and ducks?
If I go to the grocer and ask for a chicken and unwittingly come home with a (fattier and less healthful) duck, that's a problem. But (1) same-sex marriage poses no similar problem: no one worries about walking his bride down the aisle, lifting her veil, and discovering "Damn! You're a dude!" And (2) such problems are still in the realm of consequences.
If there's an inherent problem with using the word "chicken" to refer to both chickens and ducks, it's that doing so would obscure a real difference in nature. Whatever we call them-indeed, whether we name them at all-chickens and ducks are distinct creatures.
Something similar would occur if we used the word "silver" to refer to both silver and platinum. Even if no one noticed and no one cared, the underlying realities would be different.
That might begin to get at what marriage-equality opponents mean when they claim that same sex marriage involves "a lie about human nature" (Gallagher's words). But if it does, then their argument is weak on at least two counts.
First, one can acknowledge a difference between two things while still adopting a blanket term that covers them both. Both chickens and ducks are fowl; both silver and platinum are precious metals.
So even if same-sex and opposite-sex relationships differ in some fundamental way, there's nothing to prevent us from using the term "marriage" to cover relationships of both sorts-especially if we have compelling reasons for doing so (for example, that marriage equality would make life better for millions of gay people and wouldn't take anything away from straight people).
The second and deeper problem is that both the chicken/duck example and the silver/platinum example involve what philosophers call "natural kinds"-categories that "carve nature at the joints," as it were. By contrast, marriage is quintessentially a social, or artifactual, kind: it's something that humans create.
(One might retort that God created marriage. That rejoinder won't help marriage-equality opponents attempting to provide a constitutionally valid reason against secular marriage equality. But it might help explain why they sometimes treat marriage as if it were a fixed object in nature.)
Like "baseball," "art," "war," and "government"-to take a random list-and unlike "chicken" or "silver," the word "marriage" refers to something that humans arrange and can rearrange. Indeed, they HAVE rearranged it. Polygamy was once the norm; wives were the legal property of their husbands; mutual romantic interest was the exception rather than the rule.
Of course it doesn't follow that any and all rearrangements are advisable. We could change baseball so that it has four outs per inning. Doing so might or might not improve the game. But saying "that's not really baseball!" is hardly a compelling argument against the change (any more than it was against changing the designated-hitter rule).
So too with the claim "that's not really marriage." Maybe that's not what marriage WAS. But should it be now?
35 Comments for “Crying Fowl about Marriage”
posted by TS on
The definitional argument would make me laugh if it weren’t for the fact that it is actually used in a much more sinister way then you describe here. It’s actually framing a situation of heroic defiance: The rest of the world is determined to go mad, but hear us? we stand for sanity. Sanity! While Big Brother is trying to tell you two and two make five (or man and man make family), we refuse to give up our commitment to the truth. And while it may appear looney to opponents of their ideology, for people who are looking for the strength to hold out against a rising tide of change that they view (for reasons I still can’t fully understand) as disastrous, this way of talking helps muster the strength. It’s a defiant, mostly contrived laugh in the face of fear, but what are they so afraid of? Maybe that their cruel god, like my mean 1st grade P.E. teacher, will punish everyone for the wrongdoing of a few?
Don’t forget that when you’re as self-righteous as self-decieving, your ultimate fantasy is to be vindicated. Look at the “Left Behind” series of books. They’re basically all about the coming time when believers finally ger rewarded for believing even in the face of “persecution”.
posted by Amicus on
It’s an invitation for people to feel better of themselves, nothing more.
I’ve not ashamed to advance our own “pre-history” to counter her implicit one.
From the MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
posted by s on
Well said.
posted by Lilybart on
Marriage means different things to the State than it does to the Church. To the State, it is simply a contract between two people to share rights and responsibilities. The State is not in the Holy Sacrament business.
To the Church, it is a mystical mingling of two into one, blessed by God. Let the Church have their definition, which no one is asking them to change, and the State just makes contracts between two consenting, non-related adults. What is the problem again?
posted by theod1 on
Here’s my inviolable raison d’etre for same-sex marriage: Homosexuals have a Constitutional right & responsibility to be as miserable in marriage as heteros.
posted by Dennis on
If one assumes that the nuclear family unit is the fundamental organization in civilization, one without which all other relational norms (personal as well as corporate) are adversely impacted, then creating a proprietary modification to its structure would have unforeseen consequences.
Once marriage means something other than what it has always (for all practical purposes) meant, then there is no limit to what else it could mean.
posted by Evan on
I think Dennis’s point is worth discussing. He seems to be suggesting that by allowing same-sex marriage, we would be modifying the structure of the nuclear family, which would have unforseen consequences. But I don’t how allowing gay marriage would do anything to the nuclear family, except maybe allowing a few gays now trapped in heterosexual marriage to get out of it. The nuclear family will go on just as it always has, since the vast majority of people will continue to be attracted to members of the opposite sex and so the instutition of heterosexual marriage will go on just as it has.
Homosexuals are already parts of our families, whether we like it or not. They’re our brothers and sisters, aunts, uncles, fathers and mothers. Acknowledging this and allowing them to get married wouldn’t change anything.
posted by Grange95 on
Very well-argued. Regrettably, logic has little to do with anti-marriage equality arguments. But there is still great value in reaching the persuadable middle by putting a cogent counterargument out there for their consideration.
I will definitely be sharing this line with my friends:
“[N]o one worries about walking his bride down the aisle, lifting her veil, and discovering âDamn! Youâre a dude!â
posted by jpeckjr on
@lilybart. Not all churches consider marriage a Holy Sacrament as the Roman Catholic church does. My United Church of Christ does not. We certainly hold that marriage is a worthy relationship through which two people can experience a mystical unity — two become one. Since 2005, we have been officially on record as supporting marriage equality (and unofficially for some years before that vote.) We hold that two persons of the same gender can indeed experience that unity.
@dennis. Is forming a nuclear family mandatory or voluntary? I maintain it is voluntary, at least in our place and time, that the two people who are marrying each other are doing so of their own volition. And the decision to have children is also voluntary. All the other relationships you mention are voluntary. Since two persons of the same gender can form other kinds of partnership, why can’t they form a family? Or, perhaps, we should not consider that corporations are the same as a person with regard to fundamental human rights?
posted by Sakharov on
If there is a public interest in making a distinction between same-sex and opposite unions, then there is an argument for using distinct labels. The public interest is the following: when children are young, before their sexual orientation is known, there is over a 90% probability that they are heterosexuals. It is in the public interest that they be raised in a household with both a male and female present so that they will hopefully see good examples for modeling behavior when they become adults. That is the ideal. It’s not always achieved, but it is preferred. Therefore, it is in the public interest to discriminate in favor of opposite-sex relationships.
It is also in the public interest to foster stable monogamous relationships between same-sex couples and offer civil unions to that end. They may have rights for adoption, but holding other factors constant (income, age, race, etc.), the polity may decide that it’s preferrable to place young children with married couples and teenage homosexual children with same-sex couples.
The legal ramification of using the word “marriage” for same-sex couples is that they will have equal rights for adopting a 1 year boy versus an opposite sex couple. That would make an interesting political commercial.
The polity may also decide that it’s OK to discriminate in private contracts and voluntary associations on the basis of marriages and civil unions. If someone wants to offer vacation packages only for same-sex couples, that shouldn’t warrant 14th amendment scrutiny. Likewise, if someone wants to offer health insurance policies with rating tables differentiating family plans with different pricing for same-sex and opposite sex couples, that also shouldn’t be regarded as an equal protection violation.
Allowing distinctions and discrimination is not always hatred. The Gay community gets juiced up by equating the two, but it has about as much intellectual heft as protesting against same-sex toilets.
posted by Billy Glover on
Great discussion. Don Slater said in ONE Magazine and elsewhere in the 1960s, either we will all have marriage, or no one will.
posted by Williams on
Sakharov:
“When children are young, before their sexual orientation is known, there is over a 90% probability that they are heterosexuals. It is in the public interest that they be raised in a household with both a male and female present so that they will hopefully see good examples for modeling behavior when they become adults. That is the ideal. It’s not always achieved, but it is preferred. Therefore, it is in the public interest to discriminate in favor of opposite-sex relationships.”
Your justification here is not borne out by the many longitudinal studies (many discussed in the Prop 8 trial) that found no conclusive evidence that children are any worse (or any better) off being raised by a same-sex couple. The male-female relationship modeling you describe is everywhere in our culture, though much of it is romanticized to the point of unrealistic expectations. It is a couple’s healthy relationship, not its personnel, that is the important example that a child should grow up to emulate.
Many gay and lesbian adults grew up in heterosexual two-parent families, yet can form healthy and satifying same sex relationships with few, if any, same-sex models to follow. It is also true that heterosexual adults who grew up in homosexual two-parent families can have healthy and satisfying opposite-sex relationships. There is simply no conclusive evidence that heterosexual children NEED heterosexual parents any more than homosexual children need homosexual parents. Nor is there evidence that one form of couple should be favored over the other.
posted by irtnog on
@ dennis. who’s to say that the nuclear family is “the fundamental organization in civilization,” and that it means what you seem to think it means — one man, one woman, and their children? there have been more civilizations than you can count where the family was one man, several women, and children, as well as civilizations where the “family” was the lineage group. the fact that those organizations are not now typical is an argument for the malleability of the definition of marriage, which is really the point of this article, right?
Marriage does *not* “meant what it always has,” but it has not meant just about anything, either. So while there may not be an theoretical limits on what it can mean, there are obviously practical limits.
posted by Sakharov on
Williams,
Ah yes, the studies “proving” that children raised in same-sex households are “no worse off.” I’m glad that that the gay community is being open and honest about this claim. You are denying that females and males bring complementary attributes to child-rearing. You, the unisex theologians, and the studies, are claiming that 2 men and 2 women will on average produce the same kinds of results as opposite-sex households. That is proposterous on its face. “No worse off” is an elastic term. It is not equivalent to claiming that same-sex households produce the “the same results as” opposite-sex households.
Indeed, we are talking about tastes and preferences not rights. Your rights as an adult to choose your sex partners unimpeded don’t trump a social interest in creating a dominant mieleu for children to operate within.
Besides, those studies are not the kind of reasoning to build a constitutional lawsuit upon. The sample size and time period of this Brave New World is too small to generalize to a population. All that is required is for the polity to prefer the kinds of children that emerge from opposite-sex households to those who emerge from same-sex households. That preference is enshrined in use of a different word for opposite-sex unions and a preference for those unions in certain facets. Same sex couples aren’t being prevented from adopting or using artificial insemination to obtain children. They’re just distinguished from opposite-sex couples by use of a word, “marriage.”
posted by Sakharov on
William,
One last comment about those studies. Marriage is a tough. It’s against the nature of men to be bound in a monogamous relationship. Marriage benefits mothers and children more than fathers, especially in a modern industrial society where men don’t have to rely on their children for old age support. In fact, without this economic incentive, we see declining birthrates in Western societies because child rearing interferes with enjoying the finer things in life during the physical prime of our lives. More and more we have to rely on social pressures to get people to do something that pure economic survival compelled them to do in the past. In some countries like Singapore and Russia, families are even paid to have children.
Right now, children raised in same-sex households are a small minority of the population, and those parents are under social pressure to raise their children in conformity with heterosexual expectations. However, if sizable ghettoes of same-sex households with children form in urban areas, the dynamic could be completely different. These studies give us no insight into what could happen in such circumstances.
You’re more sanguine about this Brave New World and its implications than I am. I prefer to see it develop at a much slower pace under a regime where opposite-sex relationships are preeminent, but same-sex relationships are supported.
posted by dean on
i agree with the statement “marriage is between one man and one woman”; i would also add the phrase “BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY”.
posted by Matt on
Sakharov,
You seem to be arguing that children must see a man-woman parenting duo in order to internalize some kind of mystical yin-yang gender binary that helps them become well adjusted individuals.
Can you explain how that binary helps them become well-adjusted, or otherwise show how that binary creates any tangible benefit?
Nightmare Mode: Vague platitudes about the natural order of things or metaphysical complementaries do not count as “benefit”.
posted by Williams on
Well said, Matt!
Sakharov, you conveniently ignore that I wrote children aren’t any worse (OR ANY BETTER) off if they are raised by a same sex couple. In other words, there is no significant difference in the caliber of parenting they receive and yes, what you call “preposterous on its face” is in fact supported by peer-reviewed sociological studies–different sets of parents, essentially same results. Except, of course, children of same sex couples probably have to deal with bigotry from other people because of who their parents are.
It is true that this is a relatively new area to examine (past 10-20 years). However, your speculation of what would happen in a same-sex parenting ghetto is truly paranoid and baseless. For one, most gay couples now live well-interspersed with heterosexual households. Two, heterosexuality will always dominate society. Any parent preparing his/her child to be able to navigate and understand the world understands that.
And this was truly frightening: “All that is required is for the polity to prefer the kinds of children that emerge from opposite-sex households to those who emerge from same-sex households.” How shall we differentiate these children? Brand their flesh or just pin a symbol to their clothing? Or is it your belief that the kids of same-sex couples won’t be manly or feminine enough? Or won’t know which gender they are? Again, not shown in the existing evidence.
posted by Sakharov on
Matt, Williams,
Studies prove that children do better in 2 parent households than children raised in single parent households. Does that mean that it is good social policy to pass a law making it possible to forcibly remove a child from a single mom and place it in a 2-parent household? Think about that for a minute before you champion the conclusions of studies for justifying social policies.
The studies I’ve seen measure subjective notions like self-esteem, peer relationships, etc. Are there any longitudinal studies of large samples comparing the education, income, and other objective measurements of children raised in same-sex versus opposite-sex households? Please cite them so that I could review them.
Have either of you raised any children? Because only someone who has not could have possibly made a breathtakingly stupid, derisive comment about a supposed “Yin-Yang Gender Binary.” My wife and I have raised an adult son and a teenage girl.
I read Andrew Sullivan’s blog on a daily basis. I understand that the word “marriage” means a lot for gaining the straight community’s acceptance of same-sex relationships. I think he places too much hope on the word “marriage.” I prefer that a distinction remain in place. Distinctions don’t equate to hate any more than a Jewish man prefering to marry a Jewish woman is an expression of hate toward gentiles.
posted by Matt on
A Jewish man wanting only to marry a Jewish woman is his own business (and maybe that of his family and anyone who might want to marry him).
A government enshrining in its laws, “A Jew may only marry another Jew”, is the business of everyone who has to answer to or deal with that government’s jurisdiction.
“Studies prove that children do better in 2 parent households than children raised in single parent households. Does that mean that it is good social policy to pass a law making it possible to forcibly remove a child from a single mom and place it in a 2-parent household? Think about that for a minute before you champion the conclusions of studies for justifying social policies.”
That all said, obvious troll is obvious. I think we’re done here.
posted by Matt on
“That all said, obvious troll is obvious. I think we’re done here.” –It occurs to me that people actually believed the death panels lie, so maybe this isn’t quite as obvious. Another for the Poe’s Law archives I suppose…
Okay, fine. Explain the logical, cause and effect connection between “Two people can get married to each other regardless of their sex or gender” and, well, whatever might be analogous to your taking kids out of single parent homes example. “Someone will be required to marry someone of the same gender before they can adopt” or something.
Because apparently I haven’t raised children which would magically have given me the power to understand this logic.
And to be less snarky… why do you need the two to be separate but equal? You have consistently evaded the fundamental question of WHY homosexual partnerships must be kept fenced off in its own little box, always deflecting with demands for irrelevant facts, non sequitur ad hominems, and inane grandstanding about how offended you are. If you honestly can’t articulate any reason why you feel the need to segregate people based on the gender of their spouse, maybe it’s because there IS no articulate reason.
posted by Williams. on
Sakharov,
You are the one insisting that hetero parenting is better than homo parenting. I’m calling you on that. I am not saying that the sociological studies should be the only basis for amending marriage laws. A far better basis is the U.S. Constituion and its insistence on equality under the law. Interesting (but not surprising) that you offer no particulars to back your assertions, yet ask the same of your challenger. Read the words of Prof. Lamb, in his testimony (beginning on page 5) from the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/2010-01-15-Perry-Trial-Day-05-Lamb-Zia-mini.pdf
Now please answer Matt’s question about why you feel that children MUST live with a male-female parenting model (regardless of the quality of that relationship) in order to succeed/be happy/not turn out to be psychopaths, etc. Derisive dismissal of the question based on your anecdotal experiences won’t do.
posted by Sakharov on
Williams, Matt,
Never have I written that children must live with a opposite-sex couple regardless of the quality of the relationship. Maybe your mind is incapable of grasping rank order preferences and analogies so I’ll spell it out for you. 1. male-female couple (not necessarily heterosexual) 2. male-male couple for boys, female-female couple for girls 3. single male or single female 4. foster care.
These rankings hold ALL OTHER FACTORS CONSTANT like income, education, race. Obviously, trailer-trash, beer-swilling, foul-mouthed and violent male-female couple are not preferable to an upper-East Side NY condo-owning, well-mannered male-male couple. For that we’ll need more than one dimensional space to map the preferences, but I fear that would exceed your mathematical and spacial reasoning powers so I’ll keep it simple.
When people have written contracts and laws for the past few centuries, they used the word marriage to mean a “male-female” union. You wish to upend that history. If it were possible to use the word “marriage” and still discriminate on the basis of same-sex versus opposite-sex unions, then I wouldn’t have a big problem with same-sex couples appropriating the word, “marriage.” However, our legal system and US constituional provision requiring all states to honor the contracts of other states would not allow that discrimination to occur so the marriage must be reserved for what people of the past intended it to mean when they used it.
As for articulating a reason and proving why it’s important to make this distinction, I’d say it’s the same reasons that led the US to require that Utah abandon polygamy as a condition for joining the Union. Can you articulate a rational reason for prohibiting free-willed adults from entering into polygamous marriage? When you can do that, then I’ll answer your challenge more fully. But I’ll leave you with this example: I know someone who runs a ballroom dance school. Unattached men and women come to classes and rotate pairing. A few years ago several homosexuals came to class and tried to get in the female line so that they could dance with other men. And some men danced with each other during the class. Let’s just say that ruined the romantic atmosphere the heterosexuals wanted to feel during their dancing. I’m sure you’d feel the same if a football team and its female cheerleaders descended upon a gay bar and ruined the vibe. This is stuff you cannot rationalize or study for puruposes of a lawsuit. You just know it.
The government doesn’t exist to enforce all contracts that people want to make nor does it exist to have these contracts treated them same regardless of who makes them. For example, governments don’t always enforce loans for gambling, indentured servitude, and a number of other contracts people enter into all the time. There must be a public interest in their enforcement, and the gay community has not demonstrated the vital public interest in having same-sex and opposite-sex unions having the same name.
Unfortunately, the 14th amendment doesn’t mandate that same-sex unions and opposite sex unions be treated equally than it does that male and female restrooms not be segregated. As a matter of law, this case is doomed because homosexuals aren’t prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And until very recently in human history, the person with whom you married had little or nothing to do with LOVE! It was all about economics and child-rearing. To say the word “marriage” has to be tagged onto a legal contract because you happen to love someone of the same sex is laughable. So separate but equal is OK in this case. Sorry, but your plight doesn’t quite rise to the level of the African Americans.
posted by Matt on
Thank you for providing an answer.
So if I understand correctly:
1. We must keep the groups apart because sensitive heterosexuals would get offended if they see homosexuality in their presence. (“ruined” “romantic” “atmosphere” of the dance class)
2. Appeal to history: it was that way before, therefore it must stay that way.
3. If it’s all about freedom to contract, then polygamy should also be acceptable (Frankly, as a het male with a propensity for catching the attentions of attached and married women, I’d have no problem with that.)
4. Broadly worded equality rights do not specifically mention homosexuals.
1 is self-explanatory. “If we let the niggers go anywhere they’d like our frail sensitive folk might be offended by their savage dark faces and uncouth African ways!”
2 would… also allow polygamy, or at least polygyny. It might also possibly allow marriage not by contract but by pillaging a nearby town and bringing back a girl or two. Clubbing and dragging by hair if necessary.
3 has at least one practical answer: multi-directional divorce, maintenance, and asset division proceedings would become nightmarishly complicated very quickly. This is not a problem that distinguishes same-sex from opposite-sex marriage or divorce – still two-way adversarial proceedings based on earning capacity and fitness to be a parent, less the temptation to fall back on sexist stereotypes.
4 would mean that Chinese and Germans are free to be discriminated against, since the 14th does not address them specifically and was not meant to.
And if a marriage were entirely about economics and child rearing… wouldn’t that be an argument in favour of same-sex marriages, assuming that you’d have an income earner and a homemaker whatever their gender?
Or is the core of your argument really that same-sex marriages would erode some gender-based division of labour that you hold sacrosanct?
posted by Sakharov on
Matt,
You’re weak on your polygamy objections. You see if it’s all about being able to marry the person you love, then the 14 amendment should allow polygamy based on your theories of marriage. Islamic countries have figured out how to deal with asset division procedings that you assert would be “nightmarishly difficult.” Even you’re too dumb to figure it out on your own, you could always go ahead and do some research on how the Muslims solve this problem. But then getting out of your armchair to do empirical research and logical reasoning aren’t your strong suits.
What you’re too cowardly to admit is that the US discriminated against Mormons by rejecting their polygamous lifestyle choices. It was pure Judeo-Christian thuggery because the majority of the USA didn’t approve of that lifestyle. You cannot sugar-coat this and claim that there is some legally neutral justification that could simultaneously prohibit polygamy while also accepting your theory that the state should enforce contracts of marriage just because you love someone else, even of the same sex. Just ask a devout Muslim if he finds offense that our laws would have prevented the prophet Muhammed himself from exercising his holy lifestyle choices. Muslims in Britain are trying to eliminate restrictions against polygamy so it isn’t an imaginary case.
I also never got an explanation from you why separate but equal toilet facilities for men and women are OK under the 14th amendment? The 14th amendment doesn’t mean that all discrimination is illegal. If you actually read the 14th amendment, then you wouldn’t have written your stupid little screed about Germans and Chinese. The separate labels of “marriage” and “civil unions” will be upheld under the same reasoning.
Homosexuals aren’t discriminated against, lame-brain. They can and have married persons of the opposite-sex. You are proposing a wholly novel theory that just because you love someone that you should be able to marry them. Age, communicable diseases and genetical defects have historically been grounds for limiting the ability to marry whomever you want.
But it’s really not that tragic. Same-sex couples can enter into civil unions. But you claim that because you cannot label your contract with your lover a “marriage,” that you are being persecuted!
Well, get in line behind Haitian earthquake victims.
posted by Matt on
I never objected to polygamy in this discussion, merely managed to brainstorm one potentially reasonable objection.
Which is undefined times more reasonable objections than have been raised against same sex marriage in this entire discussion.
As for everything else: I’m still wondering about how you mentioned that you raised two kids but then just suddenly stopped there without elaborating on how that makes you in a better position to know anything. Yes, raising kids is an experience but you’ve just givens Situation, Task, Action with no Result.
I can’t blame them, I wouldn’t write home either.
posted by Williams on
This is late, but can we try to be civil and refrain from name-calling?
Actually, if the contract were called “civil unions” for everyone, gay or straight, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I don’t have a problem with unisex toilets either, but the reason separate ones exist goes back to biological differences vs. human-made differences discussed in the original article.
There’s a few simple reasons why it should be called marriage regardless of which two consenting, unrelated adults want to enter that agreement.
1) It’s already called that in 5 states (and potentially D.C.), therfore it is alredy legal to do so in the U.S.
2) If the regulations of such contract are the same, the legal name of the type of contract should be also. There is a state interest in not creating legal ambiguity. Courts are clogged enough as it is. In states with separate marriages and civil unions / domestic partnerships, there is usually also a difference in some of the terms of the agreements. Different names = different legal statuses and coverages. (Washington is an exception, with its recently enacted “Everything but the word marriage” civil unions law.) If the terms of the contract and legal regulations are the same, it makes practical sense to use the easy-for-everyone-to-understand title of marriage.
posted by Sakharov on
Williams, Matt,
Toilets are separate because straight men and women don’t want to expose themselves to the gaze of the opposite sex, not because of anatomical differences. I don’t see what prevents women from using comodes in men’s bathrooms. And this goes to the core of my point which is that human tastes and preferences often favor discrimination. In some cases (like toilets) we tolerate discrimination. In other cases (like racial and ethnic discrimination) we don’t.
Marriage is one case where discrimination has been and will continue to be tolerated for similar reasons that most people will continue to favor separate toilet facilities based on sex. You can argue that people should just grow up and not be shy about exposing themselves to others of the opposite sex and just accept unisex toilet facilities. You can claim that there is no rational legal basis for the queasiness, and you’d be correct. But that won’t stop the continued acceptance of separate toilet facilities for men and women in the USA, and no court will be ruling they’re illegal under the 14th amendment.
I want to live in a society to maximizes the chances that kids grow up to prefer a straight lifestyle, and minimize the influences that their same-sex orientation may be due to nurture or peer pressure distinct from biological factors. This is especially the case for women who are more apt to experiment with bisexuality than men. Growing up in a household with a man and a woman is one way to maximize the probability this occurs.
However, that’s not the only thing that’s important for children which is why I support child adoption by same-sex couples.
Throughout this discussion most people assume that only gay people would want same-sex unions. However, I believe that we will see heterosexual single moms enter into these unions to share responsibilities and gain insurance and government benefits because marrying a straight male is more difficult than another woman.
Recognizing preferences not the same as maltreatment of persons. I wouldn’t claim that you hate straight people because you prefer to frequent gay bars. I’m only saying that I prefer to live in a world where 2% of the population is gay to one where 15% of the population is gay. It’s the same sentiment that drives gays, Chinese, Armenians, and others to live in ghettos amongs others more like themselves. Ghettos don’t only exist because of persecution. They exist because people feel more comfortable around people who share their interests, language, and physical attributes, and…….sexual orientation. Castro Street anyone?
In the matter of child rearing, private decisions have public consequences. That is why same-sex marriage is controversial. It’s not like smoking marijuana in the privacy of your own home. So the mere fact that you love someone doesn’t automatically generate a right to marry that person. Even if you don’t have your own children, you are seen by others and you set an example. The private is political.
For reasons expressed earlier, I want the State and private parties to be able favor opposite-sex unions over same-sex unions. One way to do that is by reserving the word marriage for opposite-sex unions. The DOMA addresses the problem of different states having a different definition of marriage. Under Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to address those discrepancies in definitions.
You can try to paint my reasons as hatred toward gays, but that only relieves you of the challenge of grappling with my arguments using reason instead of snarky ad hominens. I do associate with gay people, and have relatives and friends who are gay. I would never disown my son or daughter if they were gay. I want to see civil unions that promote monogamous gay relationships to be supported by our Legislature and courts. I think it’s great that same-sex couples adopt children. I’ve opposed DADT since 1992, and my son is a Marine who also opposes DADT. However, my experience arguing with you about this issue is as distasteful as discussing evolution with a Fundamentalist.
posted by Matt on
“My personal irrational tastes make me not want my kid to be X so the country’s laws should keep them secluded away from the mainstream”?
How does–no, forget it, I won’t ask that, I know the answer.
A same-sex marriage on the other side of the country between people you don’t know hurts you because you take offence at its very existence.
posted by Matt on
To clarify:
I do NOT imply you hate gay people.
I DO imply you are a narcissistic bully who feels entitled to have the laws of his country deprive entire classes of random strangers the simple right to call a spade a spade, simply because your subjective, irrational aesthetics don’t jibe with them.
Now here’s another question, completely compatible with what I just said I did not imply: What do you hate about homosexuality?
posted by Sakharov on
Matt,
Will you be launching a lawsuit to prohibit sex-separate and unequal toilet facilities as a violation of the 14th amendment?
Will you be launching a lawsuit to charge that outlawing polygamy prevents persons from marrying whomever they love?
What’s “rational” about a gay male’s preference of anal to vaginal intercourse? Be specific about the “reasons” and don’t give me “subjective irrational aesthetics.”
I “hate” homosexuality for the same reason I “hate” Jaegermister.
Calling a “spade” a “spade”? I did. I called it a civil union.
posted by Jerry Giesige on
I think I hide behind Christianity as a shield because I’m scared as a closeted gay homosexual man. I’m scared of being called a faggot. I think that it is going backwards with all that is going on in the world and I am more closeted today than yesterday. Maybe the church is getting to my head.
posted by Matt on
As a cis male without bladder problems I have no standing, sadly, so no. 😀
Okay, so let’s start with what we agree on: The status quo (US, no same-sex marriage OR civil unions) sets up an institution that confers some big substantive benefits, but arbitrarily blocks out a group of people. Arbitrarily blocking out a group of people from substantive benefits is bad.
Here is how we differ:
You believe that the proper result is to create a brand new institution that provides all the substantive benefits but retains the arbitrary block from the old one.
The rest of us believe that the proper result is to remove the arbitrary block.
I’ll give you one guess which one will create more paperwork.
I’ll give you one guess which one will create more useless lawsuits where one statute says “marriage or civil union” and another says “marriage”.
I’ll give you one guess which one will create, with anyone who is not single, an instant “tell” that would give away their orientation and colour the credibility of an employer or insurer who just needed to know if the applicant had a household partner.
I’ll give you one guess which one will force private and public offices across the country to waste millions updating their pre-printed forms.
With all that in mind, guess which one is a more minimal, conservative change in the law?
posted by Sakharov on
Matt,
Great points. I think you’ve given an excellent summation of our agreements and disagreements. Until you mentioned how checking “civil union” on an application reveals an applicant or employee for potential discrimination, I never considered that problem. However, right now it is illegal to ask about a person’s marital status on a job application. It is only after a job is accepted when that issue could arise and discriminate during employment. And as a long-term employee, for how long can you really hide your spouse from attending the holiday dinner party and the company picnic and still expect to rise through the ranks?
Let’s face it, Legislatures wouldn’t even be passing civil union laws if gays did not overcome a lot of discrimination in the eyes of the public. I know that California is not like Missisippi when it comes to acceptance of the gay lifestyle, but anti-gay bigots have lost the ability to publicly voice their beliefs without being ostracized as radioactive beings on the national stage. The whole point of civil unions is so that gay persons can be open to the public about who they are and receive respect and acceptance as monogamous couples. So you have to surrender anonymity as a defense if you’re going to embrace same-sex unions.
Regarding “susbstantive benefits,” I believe marriage and civil unions should only substantially differ in the area of adoption preferences. I don’t believe in taxation or government benefit preferences. I’d allow a narrow exception for fiscal impact reasons grandfathering of distinctions between same-sex and opposite sex unions for Social Security survivor benefits and defined benefit pension plans being excluded from same-sex unions only because the actuarially assumptions underlying these programs could be radically affected if they were treated equally. Also, I believe that were there are real measurable economic differences, private discrimination should be permitted in the areas of insurance pricing and associative experiences like dance classes.
And the government forms argument? C’mon, that’s the kind of stuff I’d expect to hear from a Tea Party follower.
Our differences are quite small. I concede that 30 years from now, I could change my mind when more evidence comes in. Our disagreements aren’t rooted in ideology, just experience and preferences.
posted by JP on
Sakharov,
While your differences may be quite small in your eyes, they are not in mine and in many others. Also, YOUR experience and preferences impede on mine, yet if I were to get married it would not harm your marriage or children. The way marriage is has never ever been carved in stone, not even in the bible. It has a very fluid nature that has changed over time and between different cultures.
We can look at all the studies in the world to try and validate that children should be brought up in a man and women household but they fail to explain why homosexuals get to be singled out, but not single parents or divorced ones. The fact is that this problem is clearly targeted against gays without any good founding, period. Heterosexuals, regardless of what type of relationship they are in get to have kids if they so desire. In all fairness, we need to start learning to take the plank out of our own eyes before complaining about the splinter in others.