Jim Anderson, a far better writer than I, who at the very least can come up with a better title for this quick little series. Wonders at Decorabilia if there is any argument for why one might oppose gay marriage. Let me try an analogy.
Imagine your (large) house is on fire and the foundation is getting shaky as well. But the household ignores that problem, no instead they argue about which model of gas grill should be installed on the (burning) deck.
Marriage as an institution is in crisies in the Western world. Between the rise of the hedonistic instamatic self centered popular culture, no-fault divorce, welfare, and social security, and a plethora of other causes it is an institution in crises. Few and far between are the families which generate hearth, home, and inter-generational emotional and financial support structures that they were at their best in the past eras.
So the question might be recast as why should we be spending any time wondering about changes to this institution which don’t address it’s problems, but instead which enforce the (in my view the at best) incomplete picture of marriage as a union between two adults for those two adults which might be cast aside (liightly?) when it no longer is beneficial to one or both of them.
To restate: Marriage is in crises. How will SSM help, because if it doesn’t, why entertain this change during the fire crises? Why not consider this after the crises has past?
Update: Just to make it clear, this is also an argument (which I agree with) why the MPA is a bad idea as well. Returning to my analgy that is because that is tantamount to diving in and engaging in the gas-grill debate, which should be tabled by both sides until the fire is put out.
The argument obviously turns on the aptness of the analogy. A lot of us can’t figure out how marriage as institution is anything like a house, whose parts have causal relationships with one another. Intuitively, I can’t see how gay marriage would impact straight marriage (I know I would’ve married my wife regardless of whether gays can marry).
jpe,
I touched on my thought on that. I think that SSM may enforce the idea that marriage is a contractual relationship between to adults which can be cast aside when it is no longer mutually beneficial. Not a bond linking family and clan for better and worse until death do they part. SSM to my view encourages the inward view and lessens the outward. Also, it is not you to whom this might concern. Borrowing from Jane Galt, it is those on the edge, who are wavering and on the cusp of either marriage or divorce.
Judging from your last sentence, I suspect you might have married your wife state sanction or no. In that regard, marriage and the state and her laws might have little (or less) bearing.
“I think that SSM may enforce the idea that marriage is a contractual relationship between two adults which can be cast aside when it is no longer mutually beneficial.”
If it’s true, it’s empirically insignificant, like blaming a mosquito for slowing down a Trans Am. Gay marriages would represent no more than 3% of all marriages. This would mean 97% of the population blames 3% for reinforcing an already-prevalent attitude of disposable marriage.
Second, no one on the cusp of divorce gives a hoot whether their gay neighbors are married or want to be. In fact, in the absence of evidence (which is where we largely stand), one could equally argue that the straight couple would be shamed by the devotion of the gay couple. “They want the trappings and privileges and responsibilities of a committed lifelong relationship. How inspiring.”
The root cause is the cultural assumption that homosexual love isn’t real love; that it’s weird at best, immoral at worst; that it’s not sanctioned by God. These aren’t legal objections, and that’s why they will ultimately lose out in the legal arena.
Jim,
I didn’t claim that those on the cusp give a hoof about whether their gay neighbors are married or not, but that by reinforcing the personal (inward?) adult relationship side of marriage vs family, clan, etc., it becomes easier to consider that divorce.
And I certainly hope your analysis of the “root cause” is meant in jest, i.e., “not real love”. In fact none of your “root causes” have ever been argued or promoted by me, and certainly not on this site. In the past I’ve said I’d support SSM/civil unions if it was bundled with criminalization of divorce.
You asked for a reason, as you couldn’t find any, why one might not support SSM. I gave you one, i.e., because the institution itself is ailing badly and when a thing is doing poorly is not the time to experiment with untried and new things in my view. At the same time, I noted this is also a reason not to support the Constitutional amendments because that is falling into the same error, that is given attention to things which relevant to the actual problem.
Imagine that the house of marriage was on fire. Your gay neighbors show up with a bucket of water. Or, at any rate, something they claim is a bucket of water. Some, of course, do not trust them.
“We want to go in the house and fight the fire with you,” say your gay neighbors.
“No,” you say. “The house is on fire, and you won’t make any difference at all. And what’s more, we mistrust your motives. What on earth have you got in that bucket?”
“But we want to try, at least,” say the gay neighbors. “Only a fool would rush into a dying structure, hoping to hasten its demise. Surely you don’t think that of us.”
“Well, yeah, we do,” you say. “Too risky, even if we’re probably going to lose the house anyway.”
Mark, first, when I talked about “real love,” etc., I didn’t intend to make it seem like you were advocating any of those positions. I was making a larger point about our culture’s stance on the issue. (This may change in a generation or two; the old guard is on the way out.)
“…but that by reinforcing the personal (inward?) adult relationship side of marriage vs family, clan, etc…”
Why deny that gay couples get married because they want a family, and because they want their families to unite and support them? Why impute selfish motives to gays who want to get married? Think about it: if they are so gosh-darn selfish and inward-looking, why would they want to get married? It would be much easier to cohabitate and be done with it.
“…when a thing is doing poorly is not the time to experiment with untried and new things in my view.”
So instead of the risky experimental treatment, keep doing more of the same and let the patient die. That’s the trouble with analogies–there’s always another one that fits the circumstances and points in the opposite direction.
Jim,
The inward/outward point was partially a recollection of an essay I wrote in response to an essay of Mr Kuznicki’s wherein he was pointing out that marriage was about nurturing. My counter was that was an inward looking way of looking at it and only half of the marriage picture. And in my view, SSM is not a “treatment” on a dying (or at least ill) patient, but an peripheral one. Which is why, when ill, I’d want to wait until the patient was healthy.
Jason,
Certainly I’d want my gay neighbors to rush in and help. It’s just that, in my analogy, discussions of marriage amendments I see more as peripheral issues and not anywhere near the heart of the problem. What I don’t want my gay neighbors to do, is to distract me from the fire with disussions of furnishing choices or “which brand gas grill”. On this issue, I’m not fundamentally against gay marraige qua gay marraige, I’m fundamentally conservative. Conservativism is cautious about change fearing the larger unintended consequences. In this case, I’m counseling caution when tampering with an ailing institution where the aid doesn’t seem to address the ailments.
A question for you though, would go for my compromise? SSM with state mandated “penance” penalties for divorce (something like a court appointed fine, short jail term, and/or community service)?
(Penance not in any religious sense, but just as an attempt to try to insure that decisions which should not be made lightly … are not as there is a piper to pay, i.e., penance. I’ve proposed that such laws might be a good thing for all decisions we as a society might not want taken lightly, such as divorce, euthenasia, and abortion.)
A question for you though, would go for my compromise? SSM with state mandated “penance” penalties for divorce (something like a court appointed fine, short jail term, and/or community service)?
My off-the-cuff response is that this isn’t a very conservative approach. I’m not aware that it’s ever been tried anywhere, and, as such, it seems at least as dangerous an experiment as same-sex marriage.
More seriously, I think there are some practical problems here: Suppose someone was being beaten by their husband or wife? Would it be right to make them go to jail to escape the beating? I couldn’t possibly approve of this as a law…
…but in my own case, I must say I’ve got something even more strict than a covenant marriage: To end our marriage, either Scott or I would have to go to Canada and live there for a full year. Canada allows anyone to marry, resident or not, but it requires one year of residence for divorce. Because we can’t get divorced in the United States, divorce is all but impossible for us. Not like we wanted it anyway; we’ve been together for eight years and can’t even imagine what it would be like without the other anymore.
But Mark, you’re still ignoring my ex hypothesi contention that SSM will help revitalize marriage by forcing heterosexuals to think seriously about their own relationships, and by inspiring them to keep their own commitments.
Looking inward isn’t always a bad thing. How many straight folks do you know who truly “look inward” and examine their souls before shacking up with their “soulmate?” If heterosexual marriage is in the sorry state you claim it is, the answer is obvious: “not enough.”
So, because a group has issues and problems, membership should be declined to a small subset of all new members before these problems are worked out?
At what point shall “hedonistic instamatic self centered popular culture, no-fault divorce, welfare, and social security” reach levels low enough that you’ll turn around and say, “Okay, all you gay people, step right up.”
Why not exclude everyone from getting married until your list of crises is fixed? Divorce is on the rise so you have no problem with two 19-year-olds getting married because they got pregnant together, but those gay guys down the street, no they’ll only contribute to the rising divorce rate.
Adam asks a more pressing question than he realizes, perhaps: The divorce rate most certainly is NOT increasing. It’s been falling steadily since the late 1970s.
So, since marriage is on the mend, when do we gays get our chance?
Jason,
That (when to gays get a chance) is a good question. I’m afraid I don’t have a good answer. On your earlier point of “penance” legislation being new and therefore not conservative, I think you’re right. But the idea of penance is not new just as a secular state law. Applying stricter legal standards to marriage in particular is also in some states being tried, i.e., the “covenental” marraige. And there, I don’t know how that is going either.
From what I’ve heard, the covenental marriages are sort of flopping. Not nearly as many are signing up for them as the proponents were hoping or claiming would.