What Marriage Isn’t

by on

John Corvino responds to Girgis, George, and Anderson–whose view of marriage is not as intuitive as they think–at 365gay.com.

4 Comments for “What Marriage Isn’t”

  1. posted by Infovoyeur on

    Many replies critique this or that logical statement as fallacious etc. But this won’t work? The true motivations of the three authors is that their psyches seem to require adherence to a kind of Natural Law whereby “one main normal identity behavior values etc. exists hierarchically for all, and departure from it, creates dangerous individual and social risk and imperfection.” A bad strand in conservative thought which of course has many good indeed indispensable strands. So specific argument-critiquing won’t get at the true com-pulsions of the authors?… Hmm…

  2. posted by Amicus on

    Good set of counter-examples by John. I also thought of #3 (and #2 in a couple of contexts). They aren’ just vexing special cases to deal with. #3 and #2 deal with the fundamental inability of their view of marriage to be “enshrined” at law at all, because marriage law takes no notice of the coital intent of the partners, and, if it did, their view would not rule out poly. They also point to the underlying fact that marriage has already been revised and that enforcing a pre-revision idea of marriage solely to exlude gays sure does smack of untoward animus. The choice of “enshrinement”, a word with religious overtones, is perhaps telling.

    On first pass, I didn’t find anything conceptually new that wasn’t delt with in the prior thread here on the NRO editorial, even if the piece is a bit more broad.

    They did have a new section of thought devoted to marriage norms extended to gays and the gay community. They conjecture that it might cut the other way, so to speak, against the hopes of some that such norms could have a general, positive, beneficial impact. But that’s the nature of norms. They have to be fought for. The refusal to do so, in the light of direct testimony and, frankly, the lack of scriptural support for the confidence their narrow view, is a deep moral failing, a missed chance, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    They also have no written consequential concerns if they are “wrong”. One cannot ignore this logical category in making policy. It’s not an either/or, one must choose and take their licks, either way. These do not have to be goods in conflict or rivals. Truly. Marriage is good for marriage. They did not carry the burden against that, with the weakest perhaps being the utterly laughable and unintuitive notion that two men having sex together as part of a committed partnership is the same as the familial bond between two brothers.

    We have many public policies that accommodate pluralistic views, a many-sided set view of the the truth as citizens live it. We don’t simply have to choose a single moral point of view and enshrine it in policy. We have other moral truths, too, including how to treat people, how to structure a just society, and yes, deciding whether a group should have equality at law. Indeed, the point of policy making might be to consider a variety of moral views and make public policy that weighs the claims of each. It’s one thing to says no more than 55 miles per hour, which disadvantages those who have sport cars, and quite another to say “no” to gay couples who seek the social institution of marriage, for all the right reasons.

    Last, I can’t finish without noting deep offense and objection to the continued vile and odious notion that the breakdown of the family or the further, speculative breakdown of the family, including battered wives, absent husbands, economic injustice(s) leading to incremental marital stresses, etc., etc., should or could be laid at the feet of gay marriage or loving gay couples. Who could read such speculations and assertions without finding malice in the heart of the writers?

  3. posted by Amicus on

    Here’s another viewpoint (a repetition on this board, actually).

    Where’s the wiggle-room in the norm for gays?

    “According to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth by the CDC, infertility affects about 12 percent of the reproductive-age population. In the United States, this includes 7.3 million women and their partners. ”

    Suppose, morally, you were to have a definition of marriage, but admit to various excpetions in kind or practicalities of enforcement. Could you maintain all of that and not suffer the downfall of the norm (or even the dire consequences of the downfall of all society)?

    I would argue that the answer is “yes”. We do it all the time. We bargain “exceptions” to our own values. Sometimes, we even “enshrine” them at law. Our society continues to have some tension over that, but everyone knows and understands the faultlines. In many ways, it’s human and humane.

    Now, consider, for the 1-2% of the population who are gay and seeking marriage at law, could society handle it? Yeah, with few exceptions. Where there is a will, there is a way. It’s a question of leadership and propagating the proper ethic.

  4. posted by Amicus on

    I want to also explore what sometimes seems as a heartfelt lament that the views of “GGA”, broadly put, are received with open disdain. I don’t believe all the people are earnest in that lament. However, …

    To start, I’d be willing to conjecture that, say, the number of California voters, for instance, who might articulate this GGA view in full is de minimus.

    That might very well be at the heart of why their advocacy has such a patina of chauvinism.

    Here are some other disconnects:

    -They suggest they are concerned about the consequential aspects of a new gay marriage permission at civil law, in terms of religious freedom and the coefficient of drag gay marriages might have on nongay marriages. But this is just so wide of the mark, that it calls into question more than just the soundness of their argument. It points the way to properly orient to their assertions about an ‘internally consistent’ position on marriage. For instance, our society and most others have long since decided that divorce and re-marriage and single people are not living lives of sin to the extent that the “enshrinement” of a right to live as such is a general and worrisome curtailment of “religious freedom” or the cause of all family ills, direct or indirect or even marginally. (Indeed, single people are _protected_ at law, not merely “tolerated”.)

    -Let’s recall also that “marriage” is not the only element of regulating sexual activity that is part of the agenda. They write with vehemence about the rights of the child to a biological mother and father, but, at the same time, would compel procreation, leaving a single mother to have a child (even the child of a rapist, in some cases), with full knowledge that no father is present and with full knowledge about the statistics about step-children.

    This may be part of the set of reasons why what some of them believe to be well intended efforts or even high-minded efforts cause others to flush. This is apart from the clear means-ends disconnect between their Harvard Journal articles and the harsh reality of how these are sold to the public, by demonizing gays as some ‘family values’ groups do.

    In a society that has already chosen not to be governed by the Magisterium, except as a private matter, it is probable that the existing state of current law is going to be a patchwork, nothing like gazing at perfection.

    Therefore, in reality, applying private moral beliefs to public “norms” or policy requires an additional step, one that GGA don’t want to take or admit. I’m not asserting that gay marriage is a consequence of a codified, “fallen” belief system, because it is surely justified on its merits, individual and social.

    What I am asserting is that the framework that GGA assert by which to “decide the issue” is incorrect. The justicability of the question and an apt judgment is to be found within the collective framework of the current laws and norms, not ‘purified definitions’. And that’s okay. It really doesn’t leave us rudderless or on a hopeless slide to degradation or lawlessness or ‘defining down’. Indeed, it is exactly the dynamic that keeps things fresh and rediscovered, especially if your faith is rooted in the power of core truth of the propositions at hand, not the power of the worldly authorities.

Comments are closed.