Anything else on the menu?
by Michael Cook
With the legalisation of same-sex marriage, real marriage becomes just one of a range of legally-recognised options.
How is this law going to hurt your marriage? That is the jeer hurled at opponents of New York’s new same-sex marriage law. As the Boston Globe put it memorably some time ago, same-sex marriage will “no more undermine traditional marriage than sailing undermines swimming”.
Indeed, many supporters of traditional marriage don’t know how to respond. Fortunately, however, at least three answers were quickly presented in the New York Times. The Times supported the law and praised as “a powerful and principled choice” when it was passed. Since it is New York’s newspaper of record and the flagship of American progressive thinking, there can be little doubt that the ideas promoted in its pages will someday emerge as real options.
The first was an op-ed piece by Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. On the day before the bill passed, she confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? As far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security”.
One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships? How long is the menu? If marriage is just the most demanding of many options, it is sure to lose its prestige and popularity.
The second comes in a background article by Ralph Richard Banks, a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay marriage? Well, he puts his money on polygamy and incest. Professor Banks points out that legal prohibitions on either practice are not nearly as strong as they once were. They are forbidden because people who engage in them are regarded as morally reprehensible. Therefore society feels justified in discriminating against them. But this is bound to change:
“Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage. We will begin to take seriously questions that now seem beyond the pale: Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?”
In short, add polygamy and incest to the menu of options.
The third is a long profile of Dan Savage, whom the Times describes as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist”. Savage writes a syndicated column for more than 50 newspapers and even appears on the Times op-ed page from time to time.
Savage, who claims to be both “culturally Catholic” and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. “And it’s been a disaster for marriage,” he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling – as long as partners are open about it.
A sociologist at New York University, Judith Stacey, told the Times that monogamy is simply not meant for everyone. “One size never fits all, and it isn’t just dividing between men and women and gay and straight,” she said. “Monogamy is not natural, non-monogamy is not natural. Variation is what’s natural.”
Traditional marriage – well, actually, real marriage – is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part”. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.
Marriage can be a struggle and even couples who have notched up decades of fidelity need to have their wedding vows supported by the law and the surrounding culture. By and large, same-sex marriage will not shatter their commitment.
But it can hardly fail to affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now.
First of all, traditional marriage will be one of a number of options. Even if they choose it, they will have different expectations and dreams than their parents. For them, marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.
Supporters of same-sex marriage say that the New York law is good for marriage. In a way they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.
Loading ...
Um, just because a handful of people believe in “open” non-monogamous relationships or in having a “list of options” doesn’t mean that all, or even a majority, of LGBT people feel that way.
As for polygamy and incest, polygamy is forbidden for practical reasons (how would courts deal with a divorce?) and because of the documented harm to women and children that often occurs in polygamous households:
http://www.zimbio.com/Warren+Jeffs+and+the+FLDS/articles/zlF8fuGaAf2/Polygamy+harmful+society+scholar+finds
Incest is banned because of the genetic implications of mating with a family member AND because of the psychological harm to its participants, whether consenting or not. In other words, there really has to be something seriously wrong with you to want to sleep with your sibling, parent, child, etc.
Finally, many of us LGBT folks (my partner and I included) want nothing more than monogamous marriage. We want to marry “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part”. Stop stereotyping a whole class of persons based on the fringe views of a few.
Your description of incest also applies to sexually involved same-sex households:
“…AND because of the psychological harm to its participants, whether consenting or not.” How can having two sexually involved women in the role of mothers, or two sexually involved men in the role of fathers not bring psychological harm to the non-consenting child?
@Heidi Your reasons for outlawing polygamy and incestuous marriages don’t hold water. There is plenty of “documented harm” from same-sex relationships, including medical and psychological harm. Yet that is okay with you.
By what moral standard can you say that there must “be something seriously wrong with you if you want to sleep with your sibling, parent, child, etc,” while at the same time denying that there must be something wrong if you want to sleep with someone of the same sex?
“Traditional marriage – well, actually, real marriage – is and has always been monogamous and permanent.”
Traditional marriage, then, hasn’t existed for years. All married couples, at least in the US, have the option to divorce. So long as that option is available, no couple can claim that they are permanently married until one of them dies. Divorce can happen at any age, of course.
Nothing from this list suggests validly that straight people won’t continue to want to marry. Without question, easy divorce has done the most damage to marriage, not gay people wanting in on the action. Unless and until NOM and its “projects” support the repeal of the right to divorce, any other observations about the condition of marriage are irrelevant.
Certainly your argument against incest will not apply to 2 gay brothers or lesbian sisters. Just a matter of time before we see a couple like this in court, demanding “equality”.
The logical fallacy of the slippery slope sure makes some people live in fear.
@Heidi
Are you saying that, either figuratively or literally, there is no such thing as a slippery slope?
@Sean
“Traditional marriage – well, actually, real marriage – is and has always been monogamous and permanent.”
And that is precisely why you say, “Without question, easy divorce has done the most damage to marriage”
What I said, Ruth, was that traditional marriage hasn’t existed for a good 50 years or more. Marriage is no longer a permanent arrangement; women are no longer subordinated to their husbands legally, or owned by him; they are no longer involuntarily available for sex. These important and defining characteristics are withered away, as is the current phenomenon of requiring that marriage be between different sex’d persons.
I think she’s saying that persuasive arguments and rational concerns are a logical fallacy, on the theory that they must be, or else she’d be wrong, and that can’t be possible.
@Sean
“current phenomenon”?
Oh, please.
Let us respect marriage more, and we can end this ridiculous discussion.
@Heidi
“In other words, there really has to be something seriously wrong with you to want to sleep with your sibling, parent, child, etc.”
And yet the people who think the same thing about the homosexual lifestyle are wrong.
Apparently, the universal definition of right and wrong is whatever Heidi thinks it is.
@Heidi
“Finally, many of us LGBT folks (my partner and I included) want nothing more than monogamous marriage. We want to marry “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part”. Stop stereotyping a whole class of persons based on the fringe views of a few.”
Monogamy is purposeful in a heterosexual marriage because it keeps the naturally created family entact for the sake of the children and society.
Ther is no other inherent purpose to monogamy. The homosexual community uses the concept to attempt to elevate and validate their lifestyle choice.
If people are free to choose a lifestyle based on sexual desire, then you don’t get to draw the line at monogomous homosexual relationships. The “freedom” extends to open homosexual relationships, polygamy and incest. It’s not “freedom” or “right” in any of these instances. It’s anarchy.
@Sean
” Marriage is no longer a permanent arrangement; women are no longer subordinated to their husbands legally, or owned by him; they are no longer involuntarily available for sex. ”
Seriously, Sean, do you have a script that you follow? This is the third time this week that you have defined traditional marriage as a legal situation where rape is legal.
@Sean
Again you are in error. “Traditional marriage” has never ceased to exist, it’s just that fewer people marry. Divorce is an abuse of marriage, not a redefinition of it, which you have been told time and again. Only in SOME societies – and still in Islam – were women owned by the husband, but that has not been the norm in Christian societies. None of the issues you mentioned were part of the definition of marriage – they were abuses within marriage. Christian husbands are taught to love their wives as they love themselves and be ready to die for them. Marriage will always be between opposite-sex people, and SSM will always be faux marriage.
@Sean
“What I said, Ruth, was that traditional marriage hasn’t existed for a good 50 years or more. Marriage is no longer a permanent arrangement; women are no longer subordinated to their husbands legally, or owned by him; they are no longer involuntarily available for sex. These important and defining characteristics are withered away, as is the current phenomenon of requiring that marriage be between different sex’d persons.”
Sean, there are no perfect people, therefore, there is no perfect marriage. You and Nerdygirl both seem to define marriage by the flaws you find. The fact that any individual marriage doesn’t live up to the ideal doesn’t change what marriage is.
Truth doesn’t change because people handle it badly.
Truth doesn’t “wither away”.
Oh Anne you noticed that, homosexuals are the perfect hyprcrites and practice a double standard. They may make judgement on any other sexual relationship however no one is allowed to judge theirs. If you judge theirs the same way they judge you then you are just a hater and a bigot.
They have another double standard in civil rights and private property. It is okay for them to go onto other people’s private property and organizations and demand that they be accomondated. You must honor their behavior and chosen lifestyle. If you don’t then that is discrimination and they claim that their civil rights were violated. If however the same homosexual owns private property or an organization you may not go onto their property and behave as you please. You must respect their private property and the rights of private property owners to set their own rules.
It works something like this. According to the logic of Heidi and her homosexual followers, private organizations like the Catholic Charities adoption agencies and the Boy Scouts must pander to the homosexual way lest they be guilty of discrimination and violating their civil rights. However according to Heidi and her allies neither I nor any other person may go onto her private property and demand that she or her allies accomondate my behavior. She is legally allowed to discriminate against my or anybody else’s conduct or behavior. If I was a drinker and her property forbade drinking then that is the law. Neither I nor anyone else would have a civil rights violation or discrimination case. The gays may discriminate against any human conduct they deem undesirable on their property but you may not discriminate against their conduct when they decide to show up at your private property.
@Sean You keep confusing divorce with marriage. Divorce is an abuse of marriage – it doesn’t define it or redefine it. And traditional, permanent marriages are more frequent than the liberal media likes to paint. Whether or not divorce is available is irrelevant to real committed people. I’ve been married for 35 years and will never divorce.
“According to the logic of Heidi and her homosexual followers, private organizations like the Catholic Charities adoption agencies and the Boy Scouts must pander to the homosexual way lest they be guilty of discrimination and violating their civil rights.”
I have no issue with these organizations deciding to discriminate against me, so long as they aren’t using my tax dollars to do it. In other words, these organizations have the choice to obey anti-discrimination laws of they can choose not to accept government funding. It’s really that simple.
“However according to Heidi and her allies neither I nor any other person may go onto her private property and demand that she or her allies accomondate my behavior. She is legally allowed to discriminate against my or anybody else’s conduct or behavior. If I was a drinker and her property forbade drinking then that is the law. Neither I nor anyone else would have a civil rights violation or discrimination case.”
Um, we all have the right to discriminate against anyone on our own private property. The laws against discrimination come into effect when there is a connection between our private property and the state, e.g., those private entities that accept government funding as discussed above, or when there are state licensing requirements for a particular business or service area.
“The gays may discriminate against any human conduct they deem undesirable on their property but you may not discriminate against their conduct when they decide to show up at your private property.”
And just what CONDUCT is that? Do you think we’re going to be having sex in public or something? My family shouldn’t be discriminated against when we are out in public. I don’t know what conduct you’re talking about, but we certainly aren’t doing anything out of the ordinary when we shop, go out to eat, purchase services, etc. Why should we be treated differently than others?
And again, anyone can discriminate against anyone on their private property. If you want to prevent gay people from showing up on your front steps, you can certainly do so. But if you run a business that is licensed by the state, if you accept government funding to run your business, or if you hold open a place of public accommodation, then no, you cannot discriminate. Why is that so difficult to follow?
“You keep confusing divorce with marriage. Divorce is an abuse of marriage – it doesn’t define it or redefine it. And traditional, permanent marriages are more frequent than the liberal media likes to paint. Whether or not divorce is available is irrelevant to real committed people. I’ve been married for 35 years and will never divorce.”
I don’t confuse marriage and divorce. But legal divorce changes the definition of marriage from a lifetime commitment to a “so long as I wish to remain married” commitment. I believe that marriages between unhappily married but committed individuals are rare. Not everyone divorces, because not everyone is unhappily married.
@Heidi
“I have no issue with these organizations deciding to discriminate against me, so long as they aren’t using my tax dollars to do it.”
Like, for example, using my tax dollars to forcibly teach my children something that totally opposes my religious beliefs (the beliefs I am supposed to be free to practice)?
Or like spending money to take words like “husband”, “wife”, “mother”, “father”, “bride” and “groom” off of all government documents?
Heidi, do what you like with your life. But stop pretending that the gay marriage laws do not trample all over the rights of the heterosexual community.
@Sean Divorce does NOT change the definition of marriage. It abuses marriage by destroying the lifetime commitment. You want to make divorce part of the definition of marriage because you want every way possible to redefine marriage. I challenge you to find one dictionary that includes divorce as part of the definition of marriage, or that the definition of marriage is redefined by divorce.
@Anne Well said, Anne!
As always Heidi is full of it, and spreads the message that homosexuals are above the law. We can and do have a civil right to not accomondate anyone based on their behavior regardless of whether or not the business is open to the public or not. Homosexuals are the only ones who claim a right otherwise.
It is simple really. If she owns a business and has a dress code, I must abide by it. I cannot walk into your business and violate it regardless of whether or not it is open to the public or not.