One of the more foolish things said in that debate last night was said by Ron Paul and I responded thusly:
Paul: “Get the government out” of marriage? What? What? What does he think marriage is? A secret agreement between 2 people? It’s a CONTRACT!
(Are you proud of me that I went with the more traditional “What? What?” rather than resorting to “WTF?” I am.)
To elaborate — and I fear I must elaborate, because for whatever reason this seems counterintuitive to a lot of folks — it is instructive to think for a few minutes about why we have marriage. Yeah, I get what Ron Paul thinks — that it’s some sort of private and/or religious thing. And yes, for us Catholics, it is indeed a sacrament.
But we had marriage long before there were Catholics. We had it before the Hebrews discovered monotheism. We had something like it, anyway, if it involved no more than jumping over a stick, or living together openly in the eyes of the whole community (thereby inviting its censure or assent). Because when humans are gathered into tribes or clans or whatever, it’s an important institution. It has to do with the fact that human offspring are so difficult to raise from the time they are born — no clinging to the mother from birth while she goes about her business the way apes do.
It is in society’s interest to have the male responsible be bound in some way to the female he impregnated. Yep, we’re still struggling to accomplish that today. (And much of the social dysfunction we struggle with today arises from our failure to get it right, as a society. Which only underlines the stakes in continuing to try to get it right.) But bottom line, that is the legitimate motivation of the full society in having such an institution. It gives the whole village somebody to yell at when there are all these kids underfoot: “Hey, you! Can’t you control your kids?” The village was wise to come up with this practice, to protect itself. And then, gradually, to develop the idea that it’s wisest to keep males and females apart, or turn hoses on them or something, until you have arrived at this society-protecting contract. (Something we’ve sort of forgotten in the past generation, but some in the more culturally conservative halls of academia are rediscovering it.)
So we started the institution, and developed all sorts of rules and regulations and codicils and rituals around it, such as the rehearsal dinner, and bridezillas. In a time when there was no notion of separation of religion and civil authority, it was perfectly natural that religious rituals and practices would become intertwined with the civil expectations and obligations. We should not, as a result of that, make the mistake of thinking it is “merely” a religious arrangement.
Of course, as well as “What does he think marriage is?” I could ask “What does he think government is?” Well, it’s nothing if it’s not simply the arrangements we come up with among ourselves for living together in a crowded society. I realize that libertarians think it’s some THING “out there” that’s menacing them, but it’s just us. Particularly in this country, the one with the longest-running experiment in self-government, it’s just us.
Anyway, to recap: We have marriage because long, long ago, it was noticed that if you left a man and a woman alone together, there was a tendency to have all these kids running around in short order. Primitive societies realized they needed to mitigate the potential ill effects of that explosive situation, and invented marriage. Put another way, we don’t have marriage for the couple, or for their priest or whatever. We have it for the kids, and the village they have to grow up in.
Related Posts
And yeah, I get it that not every society in history had the same monogamous institution that we think of today. But they had SOMETHING for dealing with the fallout of reproductive activities (how’s that for a bloodless, sexless term? I could almost be a feminist sociologist, using terms like that). Society had to defend itself.
Oh, and whenever I talk about this, people say, “What about childless married couples?” To which I say, if all couples were childless, and could be relied upon to stay childless, they wouldn’t be married, because society wouldn’t have thought up the institution. Society would be like: “You want to live together? So?” And the happy couple could save a lot of money on the wedding and rehearsal dinner.
So what is divorce? Because it sure isn’t the way for society to protect children – or be protected from them.
I think we ought to take the church out of the contract, at least as far as the state is concerned. Let those who want a marriage contract a civil one. That contract must contain provision for the care of children, ways to dissolve the contract should things go sour, and any other contractual matter that concerns legalities, including legal rights and privileges. This contract should be available to any 2 consenting adults. One can call it civil union or civil marriage, or whatever. Then, let any couples who wish to take on the promises made in church, do so in their church, realizing that those promises may demand much more. This activity can be called “Marriage.” It is up to the churches to decide which couples are eligible, and what the penalties are for breaking those vows. The Church has no business carrying out the government’s work, and the government should have no say in Church sacraments and rights. I imagine churches would require that people made their legal contracts before blessing their union in most cases, but that’s not my business.
The word should be “rites” not “rights” although, come to think about it, “rights” works also.
So how does this apply to gay marriage where the couple chooses to adopt a child? Wouldn’t a marriage between those two people be a good thing for the sake of the “village”?
And once again we have the focus on the ideal versus the reality. With the number of marriages that end in divorce increasing (and all the negative affects that has on children and society), it would be a huge stretch to say that the government institution of marriage has helped. And, despite all the supposed obvious societal benefits of marriage in regards to children, we’re seeing more and more out of wedlock children being born.
@ Mark– One of the bedrocks of contracts law is that you can breach a contract as long as you pay damages sufficient to restore the benefit of the bargain to the other party. Divorce is a means of assessing “damages”– to the extent it still does– spousal support, a/k/a alimony, is a means of compensating a spouse who relied on the marriage contract and changed her/his position by working less or not at all to contribute to the partnership. It’s not available to nonmarital partners except in CA (palimony).
Children are society’s business, which is why in this state anyway, a spouse cannot waive child support, a court reviews all modifications, and so on. It’s why DSS will help collect child support but not alimony or property settlements.
So much is wrong with Brad’s theory that I will only start with the fact that women, until fairly recently in this country, and still in some parts of the world, were considered property–hence, the “giving” of a bride in marriage–the father was in fact and law actually giving the bride, his property, to the husband. Property could only pass by inheritance in the Middle Ages or by marriage. Dower rights–the law in SC late into the 20th century, were a recognition of the property transfer that was marriage….etc. etc. etc.
and if it’s all about the children, why not let same sex couples marry–they can reproduce already, using the same means many infertile couples use….one donor “parent” from outside the couple.
Doug…
So, since it doesn’t work perfectly, we should just scrap this marriage thing, huh?
DOUG! You never see ANYTHING but the warts! You never see the rest of the face, or anything. Just the warts! And yeah, I know that you THINK I don’t see the warts, else I would totally dismiss ideas and people the way you do.
No, I see them all (as anyone who reads what I write should know). Before I ran across you, Doug, I was probably the most hypercritical person I knew. My wife certainly thinks of me that way.
I just understand that the warts are part of life, to be expected. You point them out, you rail against them. But you keep slogging on. You do the best you can in spite of them, or change strategies to deal with them, or whatever. What you DON’T do is give up.
I mean, THINK about it, folks… is there a more ambitious enterprise in the history of the world than trying to come up with a societal mechanism for dealing with the consequences of sex, which makes us all into drooling idiots and causes us to throw caution and rationality to the winds? What an unstoppable force, and we try (because we HAVE to try; the consequences of not trying are too great) to channel and direct and control it…
And you think it’s a failure because it doesn’t work perfectly, because people are constantly undermining and working against it, constantly failing at it? What do you think the human condition actually IS? This is the real world, man! It’s a struggle!
Kathryn, actually, there is NOTHING wrong with what I said, and it is not a theory. It’s just a description of reality.
I’m puzzled. You wrote one comment that indicated you totally got what I was saying, and then another indicating the opposite…
Oh, and the thing you said about same sex was illogical in the context of this discussion. My point is that marriage is society’s way of dealing with something that is flat-out GOING TO HAPPEN, most of the time, from men and women cohabiting. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have bothered with the concept. We didn’t come up with the institution of marriage in anticipation that some day, medical miracles would be possible. The “means that many infertile couples use” can be used by two people on opposite sides of the world who have never met each other. It’s unrelated to the societal hazards of cohabitation. If a couple is infertile (and a same-sex couple takes “infertile” about as far as you can go), they are not in the natural course of things going to create the challenges, and the potential burdens on society, that fertile co-ed couples do.
As an aside… a couple that is SO committed to having a family as to go through all the effort and expense of artificial means of reproduction sounds to me to be pretty committed to the whole parenthood thing. If THAT had been the norm through history, maybe we wouldn’t have come up with marriage as a civil/religious/societal institution. We need marriage to keep guys from going around impregnating all the women in the village and not taking responsibility for the results. If the guy is going around NOT impregnating all the women, why would society take an interest?
Kathyrn,
This time you took me too literally. I was musing on the idea of divorce within the framework that Brad was trying to set-up for marriage. I was wondering – for society and for children – whether the ready availability of divorce is really the best thing? For ex-spouses and attorneys it clearly is the ticket to ride; but for the kids and for society as a whole? I don’t think that divorce has solved all of the family problems that it sought to ameliorate, and it has certainly added many more of its own making.
I also think that Karen appropriately colored in the box that Brad had drawn, though I’m not sure at all that her addition was what he was thinking when he posted. But it makes sense, within the framework Brad had adopted to describe marriage.
Male pols are considered powerful figures and thus are regarded as attractive to young females. Female pols are likewise considered powerful figures which tends to be a turnoff to young males. Male politicians simply have far more temptations than females.
@Brad
“The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that “Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.”, ”
And that is a rate that is increasing. So I’m “hypercritical” for pointing out that nearly half of the marriages under your ideal government system for promoting good parenthood fail?
Apparently if you were driving around in a car with two flat tires, I would be hypercritical to point that out and should instead focus on the two inflated ones.
Marriage is a good thing because it represents a public commitment between two people to go forward in life together – whether that includes children or not. Those who choose to remain childless are no less “married”. But to think that the government must promote, sanction, and validate that bond is lunacy. It goes back to another point Paul made last night – that the government can’t teach you how to be moral.
Divorce is a foreign subject to me anyway. I just celebrated my 25th anniversary and my two brothers are going on 27 and 28 years. My parents passed 50 as did my wife’s parents. I know you’d like to think that the government had some role in all those long marriages but I’ll stick with Ron Paul’s view that it was about the individuals and the church.
I’m going to look for a Hallmark Card for my wife for our next anniversary. Something with the proper sentiment:
“Salutations, spousal unit! Please allow me to recognize the government sanctioned union of our procreation capabilities. I hereby acknowledge your essential role in the proper development of our spawn and the associated tax benefits that we are entitled to quantify on our 1040 form.”
And if Kathryn didn’t like THAT on feminist grounds, she might really have hated the thing I started to write about this thing yesterday, which suggested that the reason there are more sex scandals involving male public officials than female public officials has NOTHING to do with men and women being different, because, as every feminist who has not evolved in sophistication since about 1972 knows, men and women are NOT different!
Please. The reason female politicians don’t engage in scandalous activities at the same rate as male pols is that they are NOT MEN, and therefore have a much greater tendency to be grownups…
Doug I’m happy for you that you have enjoyed such a successful marriage. But it doesn’t reflect a moral weakness on the part of others when their marriage fails. Plenty of church people get divorced and plenty of non-church goes stay married for decades. Not sure the church is the best example to use as an institution that creates an environment for the successful marriage. Besides, there are plenty of really bad marriages that probably should be dissolved. Lots of gray area in this discussion.
I hope you follow that last link, to an old blog post of mine headlined “Most grownups are women.” Sorry that the Ariail cartoon on it is missing. In transferring my old blog to my control recently, ALL of the artwork was lost, and I haven’t had time to work on solving that problem.
Anyway, my point remains, that the best argument in favor of what groups like the Southeastern Institute for Women in Politics try to do (that is, get more women elected) is that women have a much greater tendency to govern like grownups.
You know me; I hate Identity Politics. I don’t care whether our legislative bodies are all male, or all female, or all white or all black, as long as we get the best candidates (which we don’t, but don’t stop me; I’m on a roll). I’m not for electing women qua women. But there’s a side benefit apart from the IP one: Elect more women, you get more grownups.
Yes there are exceptions. And we could have a debate, if you’d like about whether the problem with Nikki Haley is that she “governs like a guy.” But in general, the principle holds.
A good friend who is an ardent feminist once told me I was “a difference feminist.” I think she was trying to be nice. Apparently, there’s supposedly this kind of feminism that does NOT believe there are no differences between male and female, but supposedly celebrates and advocates for the differences. (Near as I can tell, feminism conveniently has all these subcategories where you can believe whatever you like and still call yourself a feminist — kind of like Humanistic Jewish rabbis who aren’t required to believe in God.) Whatever. I said thanks for the thought, but no thanks. That seemed like trying a bit too hard to see me as a “feminist.”
Doug! We are so near, and yet so far…
This is so frustrating. It’s like we are fish living in the sea, and I can’t get you to notice the humidity.
There is NO marriage — yours, your brothers’, your parents’ — that is not “government marriage.” It’s all ABOUT the societal context. It’s not some secret agreement between you and your wife. If it were — if y’all kept all signs of your marriage hidden from view, and didn’t make a public commitment before the whole community — it would not BE marriage!
The term “government marriage” sounds ridiculous not because its oxymoronic, but because it is redundant. It simply does not exist outside the rules, regulations, customs, mores, expectations and recognition of the community. (THAT is what the whole same sex marriage debate is about, after all. Gay couples can do whatever they like. Live together or not. What they’re trying to achieve is that interaction with the larger society in which their relationship is officially acknowledged and sanctioned. A recognition, a dynamic, without which there is no marriage.)
You said it yourself: “Marriage is a good thing because it represents a public commitment between two people…” YES! It’s a PUBLIC commitment! There’s no such thing as private marriage! It can’t exist!
It’s like… the concept of private property, which does not exist in a state of nature. In a state of nature, possession of property in entirely temporary, and lasts only as long as you are stronger than everyone else who’s trying to take it away from you (which is not long at all). Libertarians like to say, “MY money,” as though its existence is owing to them entirely. But without government (that is to say, a system of laws, a set of arrangements for ordering the common life of a community), there IS NO MONEY. And moreover, there IS NO PRIVATE PROPERTY, unless that is a fundamental value upheld by every institution in the society.
Again, this gets us back to the basic point, which is the concept of what “government” is to start with. What, do you think I’m suggesting that the proper system of marriage would be one in which Obama would send regulators to your house to stand over you holding clipboards and reminding you of your anniversary, or to put down the toilet seat?
I’m talking about the fundamental order of civilization — its very texture and substance… Something that is not only all around you, but that in a system of self-government, IS you…
Does anybody get what I’m saying here?
The government is just a record keeper in the marital arrangement. It’s a bureaucratic necessity for handling all sorts of contractual arrangements.
My marriage would exist without the government. It was a marriage in a church presided over by a priest. And as a very trivial part of the process, we got a marriage license from the government in order to make all the financial / tax related transactions related to marriage official.
You appear to be suggesting that the existence of a thing called a marriage license is a positive driving force in the care and nurturing of children. It has no bearing. The government marriage license is about as pertinent to society as a license plate is to a family vacation.
Brad and Doug seem to be making somewhat different points. Doug is claiming that the success of marriage is not dependent on government but rather other institutions that are more voluntary like the church. Brad is saying that marriage doesn’t exist at all without government. Brad’s point makes complete sense. Even if we don’t like our government it does exist for certain functions that simply cannot take place in any other way. Marriage seems to be one of those functions. If marriage could exist by church sanction alone then all a gay couple would have to do is find the right church. Makes sense to me.
I guess only a true libertarian disciple could make any sense of Ron Paul’s rantings.
@bud
“doesn’t reflect a moral weakness on the part of others when their marriage fails”
What does it represent then? Would you agree that any marriage that ends due to infidelity is due to moral weakness? How about those that end due to abuse of alcohol and drugs? Moral or not? How about those that end due to violence and abuse? Morality or not?
How about a marriage that ends simply when two people are mutually just bored out of their mind with each other. If no small children are involved and the split is amicable how can it be a moral failure? Why is it so hard to appreciate the gray area of this? Or the flip side is what if someone stays married to an abusive spouse simply because they are “in love”? Seems like that could be construed as a moral failure.
I appreciate what you are saying and I agree to a point, but at the same time I think the origin of marriage anthropologically, sociologically (etc.) is more than just about raising children. I agree that’s a big part of it, but I don’t think it is all. I think childless marriages are also valuable to society and that the making of the public commitment is a rite of passage relevant to individual psychological development which it behooves society to foster, whether there be children involved or not. Married committed people tend to be more mature (theoretically) and marriage gives society needed structure, whether there be children involved or not. But I haven’t studied this in any anthropological sense – my theory just makes sense to me, but I could be off.
Absolutely, Scout! Any close friendship or other stable interpersonal relationship can have a salutary effect on society as a whole (unless it’s, you know, between guys like Hitler and Stalin). It can defuse and avoid conflict.
I’m just saying that MARRIAGE per se — a recognized and socially reinforced relationship of that kind of intensity and expectation of commitment — simply would have have evolved the way it did if not for the reproductive aspect.
You might call my view Catholic Darwinism. Or something…
Catholic Darwinism being the concept of marriage whereby if you’re successful at it, your genes are more likely to be passed on, and if you want out, you’ve gotta go through that whole difficult annulment process…
OK; I’ll stop now…
I guess we can make some gross generalization about Women being more grownup than Men, but I think that unless I am missing something, the creepy guys are generally doing something with some woman (generally) on the other end of the bargain who is consenting, knowledgeable of whom the person is, and aware that that person is likely in some sort of marriagy-situation. I think that Belen Chapur is just as much the adulterer that Sanford is. And both of them were getting off on the power issues involved. Or was it true love?
My wife and I were married at a restaurant by a friend who happens to be a notary public; SC law allows a marriage ceremony to be performed by a notary. Our ceremony was our friend signing the marriage license. The SC Code of Laws addressing marriage (SECTION 20-1-100) is titled “Persons who may contract matrimony.” My wife and I needed government, but not religion, to become married. Just like we wanted!
Tim, dude! You’re talking about the man’s soulmate! How can you be so cynical?
@bud
I didn’t say all divorces are moral failures. Give me your best guess on the percentage of divorces that are not a result of some moral failing…
I guess I missed the part of “for better or worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health” where it was qualified by “until we get bored with each other”
@Bob
You are making my point for me. Your government marriage is purely a contractual agreement. It was not driven by the government’s attempt to improve society by sanctioning your right to have children.
It’s a piece of paper.
I am more cynical than that. I think she was a spy. Just not a very good one. Now she is stuck. I think any marriage that may result from that self-involved pair will last a year.
Doug! No it’s isn’t! The piece of paper is just a document that represents the thing, not the thing itself.
It’s like… I’m going to show my age here… a draft card is NOT “the draft.” It’s just a document that bears upon the actual thing. I HAD a draft card. I did not experience “the draft.” The draft card is a thing in your wallet. The draft is the thing when your butt gets hauled to Fort Jackson and you spend the next few weeks getting up really early and having drill instructors yell at you, and then you go to Vietnam and get shot at.
The draft was a very real thing. But you wouldn’t say the draft was just a card. Just as you would not say a marriage (the complex set of commitment, expectations and contractual understandings) is “a piece of paper.” The license is not the thing. That’s errant concrete thinking.
I, too, am married in accordance with the Laws of SC, thanks to a rotund Justice of the Peace in Greenwood County circa 1988. It’s a paper contract backed with my own spiritual commitment. It’s been an easy, enjoyable commitment, and I clearly got the better end of the deal–just ask my wife, her family or her in-laws.
I think the push to recognize gay marriage has less to do with raising children than it does with simple human rights. Same-sex couples who wish to legitimize or publicly express their love and commitment to one another wish to be able to do so in the same manner that heterosexual couples do. There are some societal benefits to being married (taxes, for example) that are denied those who are denied the right to marry. I cannot conceive of a sound argument for denying them that right that doesn’t require me to reach for my religious faith. While I am eager to share my faith with others, I can’t impose it on them.
Here’s a question: If a couple marries in a same-sex marriage state such as New Hampshire, and then moves to, say, South Carolina, are they considered married in this state? I’m no Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that Article 4 would indicate that South Carolina must recognize the marriage. What do you all think?
I see Doug’s point,and would normally agree with him, but I truly felt different after I was married, although nothing in my life changed from the day before to the day after. Marriage can be a very tangible thing.
@Brad
Can you show me your marriage license where it explains all the details about commitment, expectations, and contractual understandings?
The license is a symbol of whatever you want your marriage to be. You can get a marriage license and remain childless while having multiple sex partners within the bounds of an open agreement with your spouse. Or you can have a monogamous relationship producing 18 children. You can have a marriage where the husband works and the wife raises the children or where both work and allow the kids to be handed over to nannies and day care.
The marriage license is just a formality that assigns legal rights to a man and woman. There isn’t any moral component to it.
And a draft card was simply an identification card for purposes of enforcing involuntary servitude to advance the military policies of the government. It wasn’t mutually agreed upon nor voluntarily entered.
It was an arranged marriage with no option for refusal without penalty.
Brad this is my favorite writing from you in awhile!
Well then… why is it a marriage is not recognized by anyone (church or state) if the “contract” isn’t signed by both parties?
– Can you be married by the church without signing a marriage license?
– Can you be married by a notary without signing a marriage license?
– Can you be married by a ship captain without signing a marriage license?
– Can you be married by a person who took answered an ad in the back of Rolling Stone magazine without signing a marriage license?
A draft card is more like a lottery ticket than a marriage license. You only win if all your numbers come up on a drawing.
Here’s a question: If a couple marries in a same-sex marriage state such as New Hampshire, and then moves to, say, South Carolina, are they considered married in this state?
-Norm
Norm, did you watch the GOP debate the other night? All but a couple of the candidates would clear this up by passing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in all 50 states.
“A draft card is more like a lottery ticket than a marriage license. You only win if all your numbers come up on a drawing”
Good analogy… except I’d say it was a lottery you didn’t want to win.
I did watch it, Bud, and I saw how they clamored to be on record with the amendment. Two-thirds of each house and three-fourths of the states? I don’t see it happening, especially since public opinion seems to be trending toward being OK with same-sex marriage rather than away from it.
Of course any anti-gay ammendment will never pass but that’s not the point. It’s just a grandstanding move to appeal to the so-called “family values” conservatives. Once the nomination is secured the GOP nominee will never mention it again. Frankly if I was an anti-gay marriage guy I’d be insulted by this type of pandering. Why couldn’t they just say they’d let the state’s decide the issue. That’s what’s going to happen anyway. So why pander?
@bud–the general rule of law is that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere–but I seem to recall that some states explicitly exclude same sex marriages….
Here’s a shocker. The gay marriage issue is not one of the liberal issues that I fully embrace. If it comes to a referendum vote I’ll probably just not vote at all. Gays in the military – Yes. Civil Unions – Absolutely. Gay marriage – indifferent.
If we can look up this blog in 30 years we’d laugh. 50 years ago interracial marriage was a hugely troubling concept to a certain segment of society, who had certain ideas about race that are generally repudiated today. Now, no more laws against interracial marriage are on the books. By 2030, 2040, this will be the case with same-sex marriage in the US. South Carolina will be, of course, the last to come around, but ultimately, they will, too.
Ummm… I’m really trying to stay out of this digression… But when a smart guy like Phillip says something like that, I have to…
No… Must stay out…
@phillip
Agreed. There will always be some old white guy telling you how awful the world will be if we change things.
And there will always be some old white guy who will say you don’t get to have an opinion because you’re an old white guy.
Old white guys are like that. You can’t trust them to follow type…
[like] what Phillip said.
A young interracial couple I knew got beaten up in New Ellenton circa 1976.
My mother-in-law shocked her parents when she married a Catholic in 1946.
All you have to do is complete this sentence:
“Society will be harmed by two people of the same sex participating in a legal marriage because…”
Not… gonna… engage…. arrrggghhhh….!
OK, dagnabit…
Phillip and Kathryn, whether they know it or not, are tapping at a sore spot…
Y’all know how I dislike Identity Politics. Well, there’s one aspect of Identity Politics that I find really, really intellectually offensive.
It’s this notion that race equals gender equals sexual orientation. The issues involved in each area are entirely different — the roots and causes, the reasons for taking various positions, pro and con, the implications of change… all entirely different. You can make arguments for each, but if they are compelling, relevant arguments, able to persuade anyone who looks at them at all critically, they will be different.
It was offensive enough when race and gender were equated. Look at the way affirmative action was approached by many. Hiring a woman was seen (by those who subscribe to the simplistic, uncritical view) as equivalent to hiring a black man, or a member of some other ethnically disadvantaged group. (And a black woman was degradingly referred to as a “twofer,” because, you know, you get equal points for each.)
How utterly absurd. A woman from well-connected white family, a Vassar grad, gets a job or gets promoted, and it’s somehow the same as a black guy who’s the first in his family to go to college, whose father was a sharecropper? I don’t think so. And no one else thinks so, either, when they really consider it. And yet time and again, I would hear the two separate issues spoken of as though they were equivalent.
It’s one thing to see better integrating women into a workforce AND hiring the disadvantaged (whether they are men or women) as both being laudable goals. But they are DIFFERENT. The implications are different, the issues are different, the barriers are different.
The simplistic view that they are the same is a function of the binary, either-or, left-right, good-evil view of politics that y’all know I detest. That approach thrives in which one believes fervently in a world in which there are only good people like oneself (who favor racial equality and the advancement of women and, more recently, putting society’s imprimatur on same sex unions) and those other, wicked people out there.
These amalgamations of unrelated ideas are manifestations of the two-party system (which, to say it again, you know I hate). Each party is always struggling to be the majority party, to erect a Big Tent so as to achieve that critical 50 percent plus one. And neither party lets intellectual honesty get in the way.
So… you have religious traditionalists joining forces with national security hawks and fiscal libertarians and cranky white people and deciding to call all of those positions “conservative” (when only one of them — the first one — would logically go by that term), so as to form a large-enough coalition to win elections.
And on the other side you see people who believe in racial fairness joining forces with pacifists and class warriors and feminists and gay rights groups and (in some areas) the vestiges of labor unions to form another sort of coalition.
And there is nothing inherent or intrinsic in the constituent parts of either either coalition that would unite them. But there is one idea that they ALL believe in: that there is strength in numbers.
And as they strive against and demonize each other, it becomes more and more difficult for society as a whole to work on common interests that would benefit us all. Because we DO have common interests. But these coalitions are about emphasizing differences, and using them as wedges…
Aw, dang it; I wasn’t going to engage…
Every once in awhile, you get a politician who sees the inherent weaknesses in the opposing coalition and uses that insight to break it apart for partisan advantage.
Nixon did it with the Southern Strategy. Splitting Southern whites off from the FDR coalition was child’s play.
Reagan managed to peel off his Reagan Democrats.
Clinton managed to triangulate the Republicans…
Each time, it was necessary to see that these coalitions were not set in stone. And they are not set in stone because the interests of their constituent parts do not inherently align…
“OK, dagnabit…”
Weren’t you just talking about old white guys…
Have you noticed how society has taken a drastic decline since women joined the workforce?
Yes, Steven, we were… which was why I said “dagnabit.”
I had actually typed, “Alla you kids get offa my lawn,” but decided I preferred “Dagnabit.”
Just today, in a totally different context (we were kicking around ideas for a creative campaign at ADCO), I was remembering that character that Dana Carvey used to do on SNL, the Grumpy Old Man: “All this progress — phooey! In my day, we didn’t have these cash machines that would give you money when you needed it. There was only one bank in each state — it was open only one hour a year. And you’d get in line, seventeen miles long, and the line became an angry mob of people — fornicators and thieves, mutant children and circus freaks — and you waited for years and by the time you got to the teller, you were senile and arthritic and you couldn’t remember your own name. You were born, got in line, and ya died! And that’s the way it was and we liked it!”
Which kinda brings us to Steven’s last remark…
Speaking of which… remember that link I gave you the other day to HuffPo’s 25 funniest tweets from the GOP debate?
Here’s another good one:
“The other candidates could disable Ron Paul by sending some kids onto his lawn.”
Brad, what you’ve done here is articulate in great detail something that was obvious to Winston Churchill many years ago. And that is Democracy is not perfect but it’s the best we have. Of course voters will band together in coalitions to create the numbers necessary to pass the best agenda possible. It’s not an awful thing to do so but simply a necessity. I would maintain that the parties do bring together folks of like mind on most issues. Today the Democratic party is largely sane with various wings and factions competing for their peice of the legislative pie. The GOP is completely crazy right now but nonetheless it is populated by essentially like-minded folks who want to enrich a handful of people while enslaving the rest of us. The only way they can pull that off is by fooling a large number of folks who stand to lose under GOP policy.
And so we toil on in this imperfect system which right now is failing to bring about responsible governance to the people. But eventually the voters will understand this and reign in the extremists in the GOP and we will return to a sensible two party system that, while not perfect, will be the best we can do. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
“It’s one thing to see better integrating women into a workforce AND hiring the disadvantaged (whether they are men or women) as both being laudable goals. But they are DIFFERENT. The implications are different, the issues are different, the barriers are different.”
Absolutely. I agree that the issues are not identical, the history is different. But I like your phrase about “both being laudable goals.” The ability of people of different races to marry and the ability of same-sex individuals to marry are both causes I feel are laudable.
In both cases society had a predominant viewpoint which changed (or in the case of same-sex marriage, is in the process of changing) over time. That’s the extent of the parallel I was making.
What really bothers you of course is not really my trying to equate the two issues (I’m not), but the idea rather that opposing same-sex marriage could be as morally indefensible as opposing mixed-race marriage (whatever the differing routes to those morally unjust positions are). There, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.
No, actually, that’s not what bothers me. What bothers me is that my approach to these things is different from the ways they are usually talked about, and since these are deeply emotional matters for a lot of people, I’d just rather not get into it.
I think of things like this in terms of the overall community. For instance… Doug challenges those who disagree to complete the statement, “Society will be harmed by two people of the same sex participating in a legal marriage because…”
Well, that’s the wrong statement, implying the wrong question. Marriage is an institution that the larger society — community, nation, tribe, whatever — came up with thousands of years ago for reasons that benefited the community. I just see no reason to believe it evolved because individual couples demanded it, or wanted it, or saw it as a “right,” or anything like that. It was just beneficial that associations tending to lead to reproduction be institutionalized somehow.
The way I look at things, the statement to be completed would be, “It is in society’s interests to institutionalize relationships between two people of the same sex because…”
Now there are ways to complete that sentence. It’s just that the ways you would complete it would be very different from the ways you would complete the statement, “It is in society’s interests to institutionalize relationships between two people of the opposites sexes because…”
The question in each case is, why have the institution? And the reasons just aren’t the same. Which is why it seems strange to go with the same concept or term in terms of how to institutionalize them. (If you don’t like the word “institutionalize,” substitute “recognize,” or “acknowledge,” or what have you.)
Most people think of such things in terms of what people “get to do,” what rights they have. But this just doesn’t have anything to do with that. No one is preventing gay or straight couples from doing anything. (At least, I THINK those laws are off the books now; in any case they are not enforced.) So no “rights” are being affected; individual actions are not being curtailed.
What is at issue here is what SOCIETY will do as a whole: Will the society affirm, endorse, honor these relationships? Arguments can be made for and against that, but we don’t discuss it. Instead, if you even question whether society has a dog in this fight, you’re one of the “mean people” who want to deny people their “rights.”
It’s hard to move conversations beyond “rights” talk in this country, whatever the topic. That is the common terminology of political speech. And it’s why we never get anywhere on abortion: We stack an absolute “right to privacy” against the right to life. How do you reconcile those? Well, you can’t. That’s why I’ve read with interest things that Mary Ann Glendon has written in the past about how the Europeans come to a very different accommodation on the issue, because they assume that the larger society has an interest in the matter, and don’t frame it in terms of absolute rights. So they don’t fight over it as ferociously as we do, to the point that it distorts all our politics.
I just detest these culture-war things we fight over. There are so many things that we need to discuss that MAYBE we could find ways to agree on, but we insist on fighting over these very emotional issues…
If the sentence to be completed is It is in society’s interests to institutionalize relationships between two people of the same sex because…, doesn’t it have a complement of It is in society’s interests to outlaw relationships between two people of the same sex because…?
The institution of marriage may have developed as a way of addressing the responsibility for raising our children, or it may have developed as a means of transferring property (as Kathryn asserts), but neither of those are the primary purpose it serves our society now. Today it is a public declaration of one person’s love and commitment to another. It’s our way of yelling out loud, I love this woman, and I want the world to know it! Consequently, I am unavailable to you. Sorry. You’re gonna have to find another.
I understand what you are saying, Brad, but I think this issue has to be discussed from the standpoint of rights because some members of our society are legally barred from doing what other members can do. More than anything else, gay couples want to be able to publicly declare their love and commitment to their partners in the same manner that heterosexual couples do. I cannot think of a sound reason to prevent them from doing so.
It is in society’s interests to institutionalize relationships between two people of the same sex because happy people create a stronger, healthier society is about the best I can come up with, but since I can’t come up with any way to complete the complement to this statement, then it seems to be something the government has no business involving itself in at all.
I think of things like this in terms of the overall community.
-Brad
Brad, you really lose me, and apparently others, once you go down that path of “communitarianism”. It just smacks of tyranny by the majority which I find highly offensive. In fact communitarian and communist are very similar looking words. The only real difference is that one is tyranny by the majority whereas the other is tyranny by some unelected dictator.
Norm, if marriage is merely “a public declaration of one person’s love and commitment to another (and a lot of people would agree with you), then you’re right — there is no role for the larger community in it. Society has no stake in individuals’ declarations of their feelings (except to make sure they don’t erupt into violence). Such expressions are what we have a greeting card industry for.
Remember, no one is “legally barred” from doing anything (if any such laws are still on the books, perhaps THAT is what we should be discussing). No, this is about something entirely different: It’s about asking society to make already existing arrangements official, to give them a certain recognition. And the question becomes, what is society’s motivation? Why should it do that paperwork?
There are possible answers to that question. For instance, I can think of one good reason — a public health reason — why society would want to encourage an arrangement that would discourage people (gay or straight) from engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners.
There are perhaps other good arguments. But I don’t hear them. That’s because people seldom think, “Society is being asked to do something. So what is society’s interest in doing it?”
I just hate talking about the whole issue, because it does nothing but alienate people. Back me into a corner, and I’ll tell you what I think. But I don’t like being backed into that corner. I know that to a lot of people — including friends of mine — this is a deeply emotional issue, and that it’s painful to them to have people disagree with them.
But I’m not going to agree with people just to spare their feelings. I value honesty too highly.
So it’s best not to talk about it. Unfortunately, it keeps coming up. Making me nostalgic for the days when the accepted thing was to tolerate the differences between people, and let everybody go their own way. This issue refuses to allow that. It demands an answer from the entire community — that’s what it’s about, after all, the affirmation of the entire community. (And anyone who pretends it’s about something else is lying or self-delusional.)
And I’d really rather not be forced to give that answer.
What about Social Security benefits for same sex partners of people who die?
What about rights related to healthcare for same sex spouses including decision making on care for the incapacitated partner?
These are just two reasons why we need a government recognized civil union (call it whatever you want) and then allow marriage to be defined by the church and individual.
I must have missed something along the way – are there actually any states where a gay man or gay woman does not already have the equal right to enter into a marriage contract like everyone else does?
Brad–I thought all these “defense of marriage” laws in fact do legally bar people of the same sex from getting married.
I don’t believe that marriage is about standing up and declaring your love forever–it’s standing up and declaring that you intend to be life partners.
oh, and getting a lot of legal benefits from doing so…..
“Making me nostalgic for the days when the accepted thing was to tolerate the differences between people, and let everybody go their own way”
When exactly was this? I don’t recall those glorious days.
Kathryn! You didn’t hear me! See, this is another reason I hate discussing this stuff. Nobody hears each other.
INDIVIDUALS can do what they like, whenever they like (except maybe in public) and call it whatever they like, declaring whatever they like to the world about it.
This issue is about asking society as a whole to do something — that’s what marriage is. If two people could just decide they are “married,” we wouldn’t be discussing this. This is about what SOCIETY — the community, the state, the nation — will do or not do. And that’s what those “defense of marriage” laws you refer to are about — those are cases of states responding to that request with a “no.” People who disagree with those laws want society to say “yes.”
You see what I’m saying? It’s not about what individuals do or have a right to do. That’s not even at issue. What’s at issue is whether the society wants to make a certain change…
And Doug, thanks for acknowledging that you have to have government’s involvement to have a legal thing called “marriage.” That acknowledgment is implied in your questions, at least…
in individuals’ rights.
Kinda like how the Civil War was about states’ rights….to allow individuals to own slaves.
I didn’t even follow that. Use complete sentences. It’s hard enough communicating on this subject.
And Doug, I don’t know where you were, but I certainly remember such days. It’s hard to say when they ended exactly. Sometime between 10 and 20 years ago, I’d say. Whenever the battle lines were drawn on this particular Kulturkampf fight.
I acknowledged what I have acknowledged all along: that a marriage in the eyes of the government should be about contractual obligations and has nothing to do with any moral purpose.
As for the days of wine and roses, apparently that whole Vietnam War era was one of peaceful agreeing-to-disagree harmony. Followed by the lovefest that we saw for Jimmy Carter… topped by the unanimous approval for the policies of Ronald Reagan… which led us to the rapture experienced by Republicans during Bill Clinton’s two terms.
Selective memory make life a whole lot easier.
But, yes, there probably was a time twenty or more years ago when people tolerated differences and let others go their own way.
I think it was a Tuesday.
Sorry Brad but your last point is completely ridiculous. Of course the day NEVER existed when the accepted thing was to tolerate the differences in people. You are kidding aren’t you? No other explanation for such a nonsensical comment.
No, I’m dead serious.
I forgot that I was talking to the guys who, if they see a wart, they see nothing but warts. In this case, if there were in the time in question people who did NOT think a certain way, then that was not the “correct” way to think in that time. I think, I hope, most people understand what I mean when I say, “the accepted thing.” In the circles in which I was educated, and in which I worked — the hyper-PC-conscious world of journalism, where everything is about what you can say or can’t say without offending somebody — it was always Tuesday back a decade or two ago, to play on Doug’s joke.
See, you just made me say “PC.” I hate using that. It is so trite. I thought “the accepted thing” was a good way to express the same thought. But not with Doug and Bud.
Let’s put it this way (in an attempt to explain what I mean about the way the world changed): It’s kind of like white Republicans in the South. You know that people like them were all Democrats 50 years ago. They were pretty much the same people (and in some cases they actually WERE the same people) with the same world views, but back then they were proud to be Democrats, and now they are fiercely Republican. Which means something to them, if not to me.
Ditto with the kinds of folks who care deeply about social justice, who are opposed to racism, sexism, or being mean to anybody on the basis of “who they are,” to use the popular phrase. They, too, made a huge tectonic shift.
Twenty years ago, they would have looked at you like you were a lunatic if you said “same-sex marriage.” In fact, you’d have had to explain the phrase. But they were very concerned with not being prejudiced against people for being gay. That’s what the debate was about: “Right-thinking” people insisting on tolerance, and those who did not wish to go along.
Now, the bar has moved — not quantitatively, but qualitatively. AFFIRMATION — which is what the marriage thing is about — is entirely different from tolerance.
One just required leaving people alone, not bothering them, letting them live their lives. The other requires a form of active buy-in…
Oh, forget it…
The other requires a form of active buy-in…
-Brad
That’s exactly why I don’t fully embrace the gay marriage thing. However, I wouldn’t lift a finger to stop it either. It just doesn’t seem that important.
Which means that while Bud and I may disagree vehemently about peripheral issues on the way to a conclusion, he and I end up in pretty much the same place…
I didn’t arrive in Columbia until 1990. Am I to assume that prior to that, two adult men living together in a relationship that appeared to be romantic would be “tolerated” by the community in general?
I know you dislike real life examples, but my kids went to an elementary school where the principal was rumored to be gay. He was an excellent principal and I don’t think anyone cared about his personal life. But one evening about eight years ago, my wife and I ran into him at Target. He was with another man and they were together pushing a shopping cart around. As we got nearer, the principal sort of gave a little signal to his companion and the guy quickly turned and pushed the cart down another aisle. We chatted briefly with the principal and then moved along. It was obvious to me that this man felt he could not live his life openly even with people he knew well (my wife worked for him, I was the PTO President). How awful that must be.
As Bud said, do you seriously think the general public would have just tolerated two men walking around a Target acting like a married couple?
And I recall back in the early 80’s a major push within HR organizations in the large company I worked for regarding “Valuing Diversity” and “Understanding The Dynamics Of Diversity”…
Why would we need to implement training programs to Value Diversity if everybody generally was tolerant of it?
I recall a few years ago talking to some shut-ins receiving communion about how they left one church in our diocese after the priest bragged that he finally got rid of that “Gay Organist”. I know another committed gay couple that a hospital wouldn’t let one partner remain with the hospitalized partner because they weren’t related. It was really so much better for them back then. Why would any gay person really care if nothing changed from the good old days,…
@Brad–why I don’t tweet.
Brad: “You see what I’m saying? It’s not about what individuals do or have a right to do. That’s not even at issue. What’s at issue is whether the society wants to make a certain change…” To which I added,”in individuals’ rights.
Kinda like how the Civil War was about states’ rights….to allow individuals to own slaves.”
Marriage is about society AND individual rights–gay marriage is quite definitely about whether same sex couples (individuals) have the right to social recognition (and the ensuing legal benefits) that society allows opposite sex couples with no other legal bar to enjoy.
When you say marriage is not about individual rights, but about society’s rules, it’s like separating states’ rights from the issue of slavery. Sure the Civil War was about states’ rights (society)–but the specific right at issue was the right for individuals to own other individuals. Marriage is a social institution that affects individuals’ rights. At law, marriage is a right, not a privilege. If I am of age and sound mind, I can marry any similarly old enough and sane enough person, so long as that person, in this state, is of the opposite sex and not too closely related to me. I do not have to pass a test. It is my right. In general, states have a high burden, higher than a mere rational basis, to put restrictions on this fundamental right–see Loving v. Virginia. Degrees of consanguinity are a health issue. The age of consent is also backed by science–although given new findings about how the brain isn’t fully able to judge consequences until age 25, perhaps we should raise the age for marrying. Statistics show that marriages entered into before that age are significantly less likely to succeed. (and I know of many marriages between people who were younger than that have succeeded–my parents just celebrated their 59th, and they were married at age 22, but the plural of anecdote isn’t data.)
Two 30 year old gay guys probably have a greater chance of a lifelong marriage than a couple of 22 year olds of opposite sexes. Stable marriages are good for society….and individuals.
OK, now that I see what you’re saying, it still doesn’t make sense to me. (And if I explain WHY it doesn’t make sense, it starts a whole other argument on previously untouched ground.) And I’m not making sense to other people. Tim, for instance, didn’t understand what I said any more than Doug did. And I don’t think y’all are being willful about it.
I think I’m just going to walk away happy that Bud and I are so close to agreement…
I mean, the idea that ANYONE has the “right… to recognition…”
I’m still reeling from the discovery of the “right to privacy.” And then Pluto lost its status as a planet… just too much change, too fast. I mean, how does a whole planet just disappear like that, without the Death Star or the Vogons being involved? We should have a rule: No more than one new constitutional right per century. I could handle that pace…
Speaking of which… I haven’t (and probably won’t) read the book, but I love the title: “How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming“…
I will also be happy to discuss whether it was morally right for the makers of the recent Star Trek movie to imagine an alternative reality to the original Roddenberry universe…
Yes, Brad, it can be very hard for someone deep in the bubble of privilege to recognize that that is where he is. Some people do a better job than others….
The idea that anyone has the right to recognition can indeed be hard for some people whose right to recognition has been traditionally granted….
Hey, it’s tough. Why, just today here at the ad agency, I had a thirst, and I went to the cabinet, and there was NO SCOTCH. There was rye, but I didn’t want rye, did I? Where was my secretary, you ask? I don’t know. Probably off having a cry or something. I would have asked for one of the girls in the pool, but I’m afraid of Joan.
So I had another cigarette, and a nice nap on the sofa in my office…