There’s an important essay defending gay marriage in, of all places, The American Conservative. And its placement there, making the conservative case in conservative terms, is significant.
Noah Millman critiques in “Gay Marriage and the Limits of Consequentialism” the “consequentialist” case against marriage equality, “a case which says, basically, that since you don’t know what the outcome will be you should move very slowly and incrementally in implementing any change.”
He concludes:
The case for gay marriage–the Burkean case, you might say–is simply that what amount to common-law gay marriages already exist. Numerous gay couples settle down for long-term, even life-long relationships of mutual support. They jointly own property. They bear, adopt, and rear children. These are already existing realities, not hypotheticals. They are not the product of state diktats; they are the product of organic cultural change which, in turn, has shaped changes in the law.
And that:
The question before the people is whether to recognize these realities, and, if so, as what. “As marriage” is one answer–the answer favored by those who want to secure those already-existing arrangements, for families already in them and for future generations who might want to form similar arrangements. And it’s the answer that seems to be getting intuitively more persuasive to more and more people as they look at these couples and at straight marriages and don’t see any fundamental differences that the law should be cognizant of.
It won’t sway the religious right. Still, there are a lot of conservatives who are not religious fundamentalists but who look at the unintended consequences of well-meant liberal social initiatives, including the role of economic redistribution in promoting government dependency and family breakdown, and say “Enough!” Those are the conservatives who can be, and must be, reached, using arguments and language that resonates with their deeply held convictions.
31 Comments for “A Conservative Argument”
posted by Houndentenor on
This is a well-reasoned argument. The problem is that the argument against gay marriage is not based on reason. It’s based on animus, fear and superstition.
posted by Johnny on
Houndentenor.
You are assuming only half of the arguments are based on reason (presumably, the ones you hold). All arguments are rationalizations for previously held emotions that strike the brain before the ideas form. To create a pluralistic society is to accommodate all people, whatever their values and the ideas that spring from those. Those who oppose gay marriage are not opposing gays necessarily, but are resistant to the breakdown of moral values that produce social cohesion. Now I am not saying we cannot have cohesion with gay marriage institutionalized – personally, I do not believe that. I am only saying that those who oppose it make good arguments for how excessive cultural stress on diversity and multiculturalism, and insufficient cultural stress on unity and underlying moral values create increasingly fractured, atomized, societies. I think we need to recognize that liberals AND conservatives have biases, and unreasoned judgements, of their own.
posted by Houndentenor on
I stand by my statement. I did NOT say that liberal arguments are always based on reason and evidence. I hear plenty of things from the left that I find ridiculous. What I have not heard is a single argument against allowing two men or two women to marry that was based on anything other than superstition or fear-mongering. If you would like to offer one that is based on sound reasoning and factual evidence, please offer it.
I agree that there has been a slip in our public morals. One only has to watch a few minutes of reality television programming to see that. What I find annoying is to blame gay people who want to get married for the failure of so many heterosexual couples to honor their own marriage vows. The institution of marriage may well be in danger, but it is not in danger from the likes of me.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’d like to add that one of the most persuasive legal arguments for gay marriage was made by conservative Ted Olson in the Prop 8 case. I have said here many times that Olson’s argument should for the blueprint for how to make the argument for same sex marriage. Equal rights for all citizens ought not be a liberal-conservative issue.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Noah Millman’s article is thoughtful and I suspect that the arguments he makes will be persuasive to thoughtful traditional conservatives. He picks up on the case for marriage equality made by conservative thinkers like Jon Rauch between 1995-2005 and brings the case forward. I hope that he won’t be immediately dismissed and that his arguments might find a toehold, so that once again conservatives join in making an argument for marriage equality.
I hope that I’m not simply whistling in the dark when I suggest that the current state of the Republican Party, dominated by hard-core social conservatives, is an aberration, and that rationality will eventually win out. It will, as Stephen pointed out in another post, likely take a decade or more, but I’m confident that it will happen. The Republican Party simply cannot stray as far as it has from traditional conservatism and hope to survive. If it stays as it is, it will die on the vine.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Basically good article and the fact that it got published in a conservative magazine is a good sign, although what sort of reader feedback does the magazine get from the article?
I think that this is the sort of conservatism that is more popular among say the Conservative Party in the UK.
Based on chatting it up with some foreign exchange students. Both the ruling Conservative and Liberal parties in the UK seem to basically support gay rights (although much of what exists actually came Tony Blair and his party).
From what I gather many of the liberals in the UK are basically free market liberals and the conservatives are basically also liberal on social issues but less concerned with maintaining some sort of welfare-safety net. Less of a big fight over gay rights issues, at least among the big three parties.
Could this type of conservatism actually be a major player with the GOP? Maybe. It would certainly mean that the Republican party would not be quite as homophobic.
Although, their is a significant amount of voters — religious right types — who are probably not too moveable on gay rights issues and will scream bloody murder anytime the Republican Party shows signs of not being a theocratic party.
These voters are probably not going to go away and thus this leaves the question, where are they going to go? If the GOP does actually ditch them and give them the political middle finger, these voters are going go to someplace.
The Southern religious right GOP electoral plan has worked in the past (since the 1970s) and often keeps working today. Again, this might be something for people to think about because the religious right voters have impacted the outcome of elections.
If they do not really fit into either party in terms of gay rights (and that remains a big enough issue for them), then something will happen….
posted by Mark F. on
Many people who vote Republican are less anti-gay than the politicians they vote for.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties used to have strong “liberal” and “conservative” wings, but have recently become more polarized.
posted by Houndentenor on
But the reverse is also true. There are a good many Republicans who seem not to care that much about gay rights but who must cater to their social conservative base, not only to win but just to get (re-) nominated in the primaries.
posted by JohnInCA on
“Oh, did I help vote in someone that did their best to keep you a second class citizen? How silly of me. Would I do it again? Of course.”
Hrm… sorry, but the thought may count, but the results count more.
posted by Mark on
It’s quite true that many people who vote Republican are less anti-gay than Republican legislators or governors. Even polling on marriage shows that 15-20% of Republicans favor equality, as opposed to zero Republican governors and zero Republican members of Congress (except for the unidentified pro-gay Republican federal candidates Stephen keeps telling us we need to support).
The problem is that most pro-gay Republicans don’t seem to *care* very much about the issue, to the extent that they’re more than willing to regularly vote for anti-gay candidates. And so with the possible exception of gay rights plebiscites, their positions don’t help very much. And we haven’t seen much (any?) evidence of Republican voters saying they’re willing to abandon their party’s candidates because of the party’s anti-gay positions.
Even someone like Paul Singer, who clearly does care about gay equality, doesn’t care enough about the issue not to fundraise millions of dollars for a presidential candidate who backs fanatically anti-gay public policies.
posted by Gus on
Pro-gay Republicans believe there are other legal remedies for gay and lesbian couples, wills, powers of attorney, etc. They think that is enough.
posted by JohnInCA on
Trouble being, of course, that for them to be “enough” requires that you’re quite a bit above the average household to start with.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Pro-gay Republicans believe there are other legal remedies for gay and lesbian couples, wills, powers of attorney, etc. They think that is enough.
So long as they apply it to straights, as well, I can live with it. I think that there are strong public policy arguments in favor of civil marriage, but if Republicans want to eliminate it for all, that meets the “equal means equal” test just as fully as does marriage equality.
posted by Mark F. on
If we can’t get marriage equality through the courts, we will have little choice but to try to convert some Republicans as it may be decades before we have Democratic majorities in all branches of government again. The problem with gay rights being tied almost solely to liberal Democrats is that we are screwed if liberal Democrats aren’t in power.
posted by Mary on
I am the type of social conservative that Mr. Miller is talking about. In the past few months I’ve switched to a position of advocating full equality for gays, including gay marriage. I don’t believe that winning over many social conservatives, either the religious or the secular kind, will be easy. Gay equality is not, strictly speaking, a conservative policy. The fact that it is happening incrementally doesn’t mean that ratifying it legally is “conservative.” However, the culture seems determined to go ahead with this change and arguments based on the Bible won’t prevail in the long run. The best thing to do is to continue working within the Republican party (through groups like GOProud and Log Cabin) and promote plebiscites where a pro-equality majority will prevail over time.
Gradually, the Republican party will see the writing on the wall and anti-gay political positions will be abandoned. But I wouldn’t expect any large number of open conversions any time soon. If nothing else, there is the thorny issue of how to reconcile gay legal equality with religious freedom, as most religioons are not going to chance their theology in our lifetime. Calls to withdraw tax exemption from churches are pure political poison and anti-gay politics may be kept alive artificially on this basis alone.
One major reason I switched my position is because I have now seen that keeping the social peace and implementing gay equality intelligently is a more realistic goal than fighting social change.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
If nothing else, there is the thorny issue of how to reconcile gay legal equality with religious freedom, as most religions are not going to chance their theology in our lifetime.
The argument that civil marriage equality and religious freedom are at odds with each other has always puzzled me, Mary.
A significant number of Christian denominations hold remarriage after divorce to constitute adultery, and do not perform or recognize such marriages for religious purposes. I don’t see why marriage equality under civil law would be any different.
If civil law allows remarriage after divorce, arguably sanctioning and encouraging adultery, but Christian denominations are not forced to perform or recognize such marriages and such civil marriages do not seem to be causing any angst about religious freedom, why does civil law marriage equality pose a threat? Nobody is asking Christian denominations to perform or recognize same-sex marriages for religious purposes.
Just as is the case with performing and recognizing remarriage after divorce for religious purposes, some will, most won’t, who cares?
posted by Bill Herrmann on
I want to emphasize a point that you quote Millman making: that gay common-law marriages do exist. I’ve been in one for 27 years. This is very important and gets overlooked in all the talk about marriage equality being some social experiment.
It gets so overlooked that Millman acts as if these common-law marriages somehow arose because of the cultural change of the last few decades. When I was coming out in the early-70s there were couples who considered themselves to have been married since the 30s and they’d known similar couples who’d considered themselves married from before that. It’s only increased visibility that has brought these common-law marriages to light.
posted by Gus on
Came out in the 1970’s, too, 27 years “married”, too. Common-law marriages were dropped by many states in the 1970’s because of all those dirty hippies living in sin.
posted by Mary on
Actually, Tom, I wasn’t referring to churches having to perform gay marriages. I was referring to issues like gay couples trying to adopt kids at a Catholic-run adoption agency, a church having to rent it’s hall to a gay rights group for an event, etc…. And then we have the issue of those who have a religious or moral objection to photographing or catering to gay weddings. It’s clear that gay rights activists are going to sue anyone who refuses them service for any reason regardless of how many other businesses are welcoming them with open arms. There are enough “tolerance” and “church-state” issues here to keep American society in turmoil for years. I’d just as soon call a truce. Gay marriage legal in all 50 states in exchange for a relaxed attitude toward those who don’t wish association with open expressions of homosexuality. Each group can meet each other half way. What scares me is this insistence by many gay activists that anyone with a moral objection to homosexuality (regardless of how polite or civil he is to gay people personally) be given the stigma we reserve for racists – an attitude that most Americans would consider bizarre and one likely to inspire violence if pushed on American by the courts.
posted by JohnInCA on
You do realize that every one of the “issues” you bring up are only “issues” because the church/agency in question accepts government money to perform a service for the public, right?
If an adoption agency wants to discriminate (as some do) then they are perfectly free to do so. On their own dime. If a church wants to discriminate in who it rent’s it’s hall to, it can do so. If it doesn’t accept a tax break by renting it to the public.
And I’d like to point out that as gay marriage doesn’t exist in New Mexico, gay marriage is actually irrelevant to the photographer. The question at the heart of her case is whether or not her business amounts to a “public accommodation” or not. And seeing as just next door to New Mexico is Texas where a private bath house with membership required to get in is a “public accommodation”, I’m not so sure it’s a gay thing that she’s run afoul of.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Mary, I would point out that the courts have dealt with the issues presented in similar contexts over the course of at least fifty years, and have, in general, dealt with the cases successfully, drawing appropriate lines between government-funded and privately-funded activities, between public accommodation and private accommodation, and so on.
I don’t see any reason why the cases that will be presented with respect to equal treatment of gays and lesbians will be — or should be, for that matter — handled any differently than cases involving race, religion, gender or any number of other factors.
posted by Jorge on
There is something lacking in this article’s argument: the statement that the de facto gay marriages that already exist are a good thing. If laws are designed to encourage the social good, then that statement is mandatory.
The same argument the article uses could be used to support marijuana legalization: marijuana use is here, people are using it. But this is not a good thing, and we know it.
Similarly, we are seeing children raised by gay couples grow up to be honorable, socially well-adjusted individuals.
One major reason I switched my position is because I have now seen that keeping the social peace and implementing gay equality intelligently is a more realistic goal than fighting social change.
Oh dear, that sounds familiar. It sounds like the mirror image of the reason Democrats (used) to oppose gay marriage–keeping the social peace and implementing gay equality intelligently is a more realistic (or perhaps honorable, more comfortable) goal than fighting for social change instantly. I’m thinking Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in particular.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Mary,
Minnesota has had sexual orientation and gender identity in its anti-discrimination/equal opportunity law since 1993. It has exemptions for small businesses, religious groups, voluntary civic/youth groups.
Whether or not a photographer, for example, can refuse a gay couple as a client is actually different from the issue of civil (secular) marriage law.
That (the photographer) is a question of anti-discrimination/equal opportunity rules. My question would be; is it a small business? does it generally provide services to the public or is it tied to a religion? Are their other alternatives for the gay couple? How accessible are they?
Again, see the sort of exemptions that we have had in place in Minnesota. I think that this might be a good role model for the rest of the country.
I think that part of the problem, is that we get some anti-gay conservatives and religious groups who want their “religious freedom” for themselves, but get much less interested in such freedom when it applies to other people, who may not be of the same faith.
Yes, a Catholic adoption agency probably should be able to discriminate based on its doctrine. However, when the Catholic Church is going out of its way to trample over the religious freedom of gay couples and religions that want to recognize gay marriage, the “religious freedom” argument is taken a lot less seriously.
posted by Lori Heine on
What these “religious conservatives” do not realize is that their attitude and tactics are those not of conservatives — in the genuine sense of being thoughtful Americans who respect their own country’s history — but of whiny, infantile extremist radicals.
It is not in the best interest of ANYONE’S religious freedom to destroy the religious freedom of others. Even if you do not agree with their beliefs. Liberty is all of a piece; it is a seamless garment that can’t be rent without damaging the fabric for everybody.
In another age, when conservative Christianity is much less popular than it is today (and at the rate they’re alienating everybody else, this could happen sooner than they think), it will indeed be their own religious freedom they will be fighting to protect. Majoritarian bullying may seem, to them, to be a good idea at the moment, but it’s actually an incredibly stupid and short-sighted one.
posted by Houndentenor on
I say this to my religious right relatives all the time. The day will come when they are very sorry that they weakened the separation between church and state. They seem incapable of thinking along those lines. I suspect most of them believe the rapture will happen before that’s an issue. But many Christians and people of other faiths do not like weakening the boundaries that allowed for so much religious freedom and diversity in our country. If only people like that could be heard over the screaming of the religious fanatics.
posted by Mark F. on
I’m aware of nobody important making the argument that churches should be forced to perform same sex marriage. That clearly does not pass the laugh test.
posted by Houndentenor on
No, but opponents for marriage equality often claim that churches would be forced to marry same sex couples. That’s odd since churches can’t even be forced to marry couples who are not of their own faith if they don’t want to. But there’s no need for logic when you are just making up crap to scare people.
posted by Mark F. on
Anti-gay folks seem to lie a lot, don’t they?
posted by Doug on
If you don’t have the facts or logic on your side you have nothing left except lies. Seem to recall something in the Bible about not lying but anti-gay folks don’t seem to care.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Apparently, their was an issue, a few years ago, that people on the religious right often bring up as proof that churches would be forced to marry gay couples. I have only seen it referenced a few times by the religious right.
It was something like a religious group or church owned a facility or land where a gay couple wanted to have their ceremony. The church had left pretty much anyone rent the space, including interfaith couples, but held the line on gay couples.
I can see this being an issue, but it would also be pretty easy to address through religious exemptions.
posted by JohnInCA on
If you’re talking about the issue with Ocean Grove, then it’s a bit more nuanced then that. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association had requested state and federal funds in maintaining the Boardwalk Pavilion and in doing so had represented it as being open to the public as well as accepted a large property tax exemption for letting the property be used by the public. And in every case *except* the gay civil union ceremony this was true. But when a gay couple wanted to rent it for their ceremony, suddenly it became a private religious building that wasn’t at all open to the public.
So the lesson here is as the lesson almost always is in these stories: you are free to discriminate on your own dime. But you are not free to discriminate on the state or fed’s dime.