A really, really, really long post about gay marriage that does not, in the end, support one side or the other
by Jane Galt
Unlike most libertarians, I don’t have an opinion on gay marriage, and I’m not going to have an opinion no matter how much you bait me. However, I had an interesting discussion last night with another libertarian about it, which devolved into an argument about a certain kind of liberal/libertarian argument about gay marriage that I find really unconvincing.
Social conservatives of a more moderate stripe are essentially saying that marriage is an ancient institution, which has been carefully selected for throughout human history. It is a bedrock of our society; if it is destroyed, we will all be much worse off. (See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.) For some reason, marriage always and everywhere, in every culture we know about, is between a man and a woman; this seems to be an important feature of the institution. We should not go mucking around and changing this extremely important institution, because if we make a bad change, the institution will fall apart.
A very common response to this is essentially to mock this as ridiculous. “Why on earth would it make any difference to me whether gay people are getting married? Why would that change my behavior as a heterosexual”
To which social conservatives reply that institutions have a number of complex ways in which they fulfill their roles, and one of the very important ways in which the institution of marriage perpetuates itself is by creating a romantic vision of oneself in marriage that is intrinsically tied into expressing one’s masculinity or femininity in relation to a person of the opposite sex; stepping into an explicitly gendered role. This may not be true of every single marriage, and indeed undoubtedly it is untrue in some cases. But it is true of the culture-wide institution. By changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning.
To which, again, the other side replies “That’s ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!”
Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. “That’s ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!” This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case. The marginal case may be some consultant who just can’t justify sacrificing valuable leisure for a new project when he’s only making 60 cents on the dollar. The result will nonetheless be the same: less economic activity. Similarly, you–highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you–may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn’t mean that the institution of marriage won’t be weakened in America just the same.
This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn’t. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one. Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.
However, I am bothered by this specific argument, which I have heard over and over from the people I know who favor gay marriage laws. I mean, literally over and over; when they get into arguments, they just repeat it, again and again. “I will get married even if marriage is expanded to include gay people; I cannot imagine anyone up and deciding not to get married because gay people are getting married; therefore, the whole idea is ridiculous and bigoted.”
They may well be right. Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. Every government programme that libertarians have argued against has been defended at its inception with exactly this argument.
Let me take three major legal innovations, one of them general, two specific to marriage.
The first, the general one, is well known to most hard-core libertarians, but let me reprise it anyway. When the income tax was initially being debated, there was a suggestion to put in a mandatory cap; I believe the level was 10 percent.
Don’t be ridiculous, the Senator’s colleagues told him. Americans would never allow an income tax rate as high as ten percent. They would revolt! It is an outrage to even suggest it!
Many actually fought the cap on the grounds that it would encourage taxes to grow too high, towards the cap. The American people, they asserted, could be well counted on to keep income taxes in the range of a few percentage points.
Oops.
Now, I’m not a tax-crazy libertarian; I don’t expect you to be horrified that we have income taxes higher than ten percent, as I’m not. But the point is that the Senators were completely right–at that time. However, the existance of the income tax allowed for a slow creep that eroded the American resistance to income taxation. External changes–from the Great Depression, to the technical ability to manage withholding rather than lump payments, also facilitated the rise, but they could not have without a cultural sea change in feelings about taxation. That “ridiculous” cap would have done a much, much better job holding down tax rates than the culture these Senators erroneously relied upon. Changing the law can, and does, change the culture of the thing regulated.
Loading ...
“Changing the law can, and does, change the culture of the thing regulated.”
Legally changing the definition of marriage “does, change the culture of the thing regulated”.
It does impose on the rights of the heterosexual community. It is not innocuous as the homosexual community claims.
The “slow creep” is called progress. Unless you find being frozen in time of value, what is wrong with the slow creep. Yes, one thing leads to another. That’s kind of true of most things, isn’t it? Henry Ford didn’t come out with a 5.0 liter Mustang on his first attempt at a vehicle, right? He started with something much more modest, and over time, the much more sophisticated vehicle came out (after lots of continuous improvements!).
Legalizing same-sex marriage is just a reflection that society is composed of more and more same-sex couples, that these couples are worthy and valuable and are “similarly situated” as different-sex couples. It tracks a similar development in voting: started with only men doing it, then as the role of women was broadened and understood, voting was extended to women. Similarly, we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, to acknowledge that young men were being sent off to war at 18 but weren’t even allowed to vote for the politicians sending them into war!
One thing I wish I could hear from those who oppose same-sex marriage is some acknowledgement that it is not an irrational demand on the part of gay couples to want to get married, nor on the part of the many straight people who support this right. You never read, “yes, it would be better for kids to have married parents but I still oppose equal marriage rights on religious grounds….” or whatever. It’s like they absolutely can’t give an inch!
“It does impose on the rights of the heterosexual community. It is not innocuous as the homosexual community claims.”
In what way are straight people imposed on, and are the supposed impositions enough to warrant denying an equal civil right to a minority group and their children?
Most people who support equal marriage rights for gay couples are straight. Overwhelmingly so. Whatever claims you perceive are most likely coming from your fellow straights.
This just in from the great state of New York:
“Phyllis Siegel, 76, and Connie Kopelov, 84, who have been together in Manhattan for 23 years, were the first couple in, receiving a waiver from the rule requiring 24 hours between a license and a ceremony. They were ushered right into the chapel. Ms. Kopelov used a gray walker anchored by two tennis balls as they were married by the city clerk, Michael McSweeney.
As Mr. McSweeney declared to the couple, “I now pronounce you married,” Ms. Siegel tenderly held Ms. Kopelov’s head and kissed her on the left cheek. “I am breathless,” said Ms. Siegel.”
(NYTimes, 7.24.11)
You can feel threatened, if you must, by this septuagenarian and octogenarian couple but I instead am wishing Ms. Siegel and Ms. Kopelov all the happiness in the world, and congratulations on their long-awaited nuptials. I bet they didn’t think they’d live to see the day that their government recognized them as full-fledged citizens, and I’m so glad that’s not the case.
SSM severs the natural ties between marriage and responsible procreation. It allows and encourages the state to encroach on natural family ties between children and their biological parents.
Great points Anne and Daughter of Eve, and the above article I think proved this. The blogger made great points of the negative consequences of SSM. Severing the link to procreation, taking an unhealthy and deadly lifestyle and elevating it to normal behavior. SSM would cause our health care costs to skyrocket, more strains on the overburdoned welfare state, and take the incentive away to have children. Instead of society encouraging responsible procreation, it encourages no children, just be happy and have nonmonogous sex as Dan Savage wants.
One big negative consequence in the future is the threat to the entitlement state. When Anne and DOE have children, they are the future payers into the system. SSM has the effect of destroying this entitlement system that we already have.
Read the comments to the article.
Yes changing this institution will have negative consequences.
“I wish I could hear from those who oppose same-sex marriage is some acknowledgement that it is not an irrational demand on the part of gay couples to want to get married”
I’ll certainly concede that. Completely understandable, and I harbor no ill-will towards any same-sex couple or gay person.
But calling it “equal”? No, that is incredibly offensive. Separate is never equal. Every single one of us is the result of the union of one man and one woman. This is not bigotry, this is a law of nature that has nothing to do with “sexual orientation” and everything to do with Marriage.
@Emma
“…live to see the day that their government recognized them as full-fledged citizens, and I’m so glad that’s not the case.”
Marriage is a requirement for full fledged citizenship in the US? Shoot, all those unmarried kids out there need to be deported…
Sean – You need to read Robert George’s “What is Marriage””. I’ll summarize:
1) In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not bodily union. Since emotions can be inconsistant, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would increase marital instability.
2) The union of husband and wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children—an ideal whose value is strongly corroborated by the best available social science. Same Sex Marriage would abolish this ideal – saying
that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for childrearing. (Look at the
3) Same Sex Marriage would require The State to view conjugal marriage supporters as bigots who make groundless and invidious distinctions. Parents could not object to Same Sex Marriage being taught in schools, adoption clinics would be shut down, and Religious institutions could lose their non-profit tax exempt status.
I’m sure you’ve heard these arguments before, but continue to ignore them. But those reasons are why SSM marriage loses again and again and again at the Ballot Box. SSM will keep losing until they can be addressed. And unfortunately for your position, even the brightest SSM advocates have failed to do so. In the long run, the best SSM advocates can hope for is some sort of Domestic Partnership law, that won’t involve any proof of sexual activity.
To put it more accurately, Deb: The RIGHT to marry is a requirement for full-fledged citizenship, but MARRYING is not, just as the RIGHT to vote is a requirement but VOTING is not.
(I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not actually referring to anything legal, just logical.)
@Emma
“The RIGHT to marry is a requirement for full-fledged citizenship,”
Yes, however the right to change the definition of marriage to fit what a person chooses to do is not a requirement for full-fledged citizenship.
@Anne
Tell that to Mildred Loving.
“Yes, however the right to change the definition of marriage to fit what a person chooses to do is not a requirement for full-fledged citizenship.”
The right to live under laws that obey our nation’s constitution is very much a full-fledged right of citizenship.
To all of my fellow supporters at the Ruth Institute: I know this would take time, about three to four hours in fact, but if you read the above blog then read the comments. These people debating were so good and brought up points that neither I nor anyone else here ever thought of.
The great posts by Ironclad and Ecclipse in rebuting the SSM advocates. They are better than me. It also involved a libertarian who favored SSM named Kendall who was civil but helped provide for a lengthy discussion.
@Sean
“The right to live under laws that obey our nation’s constitution is very much a full-fledged right of citizenship.”
The Constitution as it was written and intended, not as it has been mutilated to the whims of a confused, self-serving generation.
John Noe, thanks. I shall take some of the time to do so. Libertarians, with whom I share some affinity without being in total agreement, have the capacity of debating some interesting concepts in a coolly rational way. This is in contrast with constant emotional appeals from the critics of the Ruth blog.
From http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/article_detail.php?id=383&type=Search+Results&newsletter=1
“Nothing …has changed. The arguments in favor of gay rights and gay marriage are as vacuous today as they were during the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Bar in New York City. Even their best minds still cannot explain how gay sex or gay marriage, or anything beyond gay fashion sense, benefits society. They simply can’t express a compelling state interest in their lives – a standard that our judiciary has long held important before we make public something that is typically private.
They still try to argue civil rights. They try to compare their plight to that of women or minorities throughout US history. [White guilt is the usual and very powerful tool in this regard, except with Blacks, who generally don’t buy it.] They say their lives should fall under our “equal protection” laws. It’s almost as if they forget that what we do as human beings is infinitely more important in this case than who we think we are. The point isn’t who we are, the compelling state interest is about what we do and how what we do benefits society. And this is why laws dealing with marriage and adoption are wholly conditional.
Emotion is still the engine and heart of their argument – and we should never underestimate [what this] does to the human psyche.”
“The Constitution as it was written and intended, not as it has been mutilated to the whims of a confused, self-serving generation.”
The Constitution as it was written, intended, amended and interpreted by judges.
“Even their best minds still cannot explain how gay sex or gay marriage, or anything beyond gay fashion sense, benefits society. They simply can’t express a compelling state interest in their lives”
How society benefits from legalizing same-sex marriage:
1. It strengthens the relationships between committed gay couples, creating stronger bonds and therefore greater mutual support (so society doesn’t have to take care of someone otherwise not cared for)
2. It strengthens the family situation for children being raised by same-sex couples. Maggie Gallagher’s discussion on marriage says that the children of married parents to better on nearly all levels of achievement.
3. Gallagher also says that married couples live longer, are wealthier and healthier than unmarried couples. The state cannot, without reason or cause, give some kinds of couples these distinct advantages, but not others.
4. Legalize same-sex marriage would reduce the incidence of discrimination and violence against gay and lesbian Americans, according to the former police chief of New York City. When the government marginalizes a group of citizens, it signals to all citizens that that group is inferior, and thereby invites hostility towards that group, with unfortunate outcomes.
5. Our nation’s constitution requires that we treat all citizens equally, whether we like or approve of them or not. If we decide to withdraw out guarantee of equal treatment for all citizens now, what group will be next to be “less equal” that others?
I invite other readers to add their own benefits to society of legalized same-sex marriage.
No Sean: We the people write the constitution, not judges.
@Sean
“The Constitution as it was written, intended, amended and interpreted by judges.”
The “amendments” and “interpretations” have mutilated what was written and intended to the point where it is barely recognizable in it’s original form. The law of the land becomes more a cross between tyranny and anarchy with each new “amendment” and “interpretation”.
In spite of your prideful assertion to the contrary in another post, we are not smarter than previous generations. Knowledge isn’t wisdom. The Constitution as Ruth pointed out earlier was written for people of religion and conscience, not unbridled desire.
Have you been paying any attention to the “debt ceiling” debate Sean? That’s what happens when you touch things you shouldn’t and make decisions without considering the long term consequences. The desecration of the Constitution will be the destruction of this Country.
I know you’re willing to “take your chances”, but I’d prefer not to go down with that ship. So, while I still have my freedom of speech and some semblance of my freedom of religion, I’m going to oppose any further tyrannical and anachistic “amendments” and “interpretaions”. I get to do that Sean, even though I’m Catholic.
While we’re on the subject, I just had a very hope filled thought……I have seven children who will carry my cause into the future. How many do you have Sean? Catholic’s have children….for free. Homosexual “couples” don’t. We’re going to win eventually.
Have you read Dr. J’s article “Loved Into Existence”? It’s a speech she was invited to give in China in their effort to reverse the negative effects created when they attempted to limit the family.
“…attempted to limit the family.”
Of course by limit I’m referring to legislatively attempting to redirect nature.
“No Sean: We the people write the constitution, not judges.”
State constitutions may not violate the national constitution, which is amended by legislators, not voters.
“In spite of your prideful assertion to the contrary in another post, we are not smarter than previous generations. Knowledge isn’t wisdom. The Constitution as Ruth pointed out earlier was written for people of religion and conscience, not unbridled desire.”
It may have had a target audience when written, but now it serves all citizens, with or without religions or consciences.
“I know you’re willing to “take your chances”, but I’d prefer not to go down with that ship.”
Your dire predictions would be more convincing if you could actually articulate what the dire outcomes you predict are, and why.
“I’m going to oppose any further tyrannical and anachistic “amendments” and “interpretaions”. I get to do that Sean, even though I’m Catholic.”
Feel free! But understand that religiously-driven legislation is particularly suspect in a court of law. The high visibility of the Catholic and Mormon churches in opposition to equal civil rights for gay Americans brings anti-gay marriage statutes in direct conflict with separation of church and state legal doctrine.
“I have seven children who will carry my cause into the future. How many do you have Sean? Catholic’s have children….for free. Homosexual “couples” don’t. We’re going to win eventually.”
What makes you so sure your children are as bigoted as you are? And in fact, most Catholics support same-sex marriage. And my two daughters are most vociferously in support of equal rights for gay people. I don’t know what you think you will win, but it won’t be to deny equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans!
Whenever anyone gets a chance after reading point #5 in Seas’s idiotic post #18, then go a few pages over to the equallity blog and read my post on how the homosexuals have hijacked the term equallity and twisted it to mean something that it does not.
@Sean
“State constitutions may not violate the national constitution, which is amended by legislators, not voters.”
Legislators are supposed to be the voice of the voters. What are you suggesting?
“Legislators are supposed to be the voice of the voters. What are you suggesting?”
I’m saying we’re a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The founding fathers were too smart to give “the people” unfettered influence over law and public policy, precisely because of situations like marriage equality: a majority will vote to give itself rights and privileges, but deny them to a minority it doesn’t like, if given the chance.
@Sean
“What makes you so sure your children are as bigoted as you are?”
“Bigots, haters, liars”
We’re here expressing our beliefs and values just like you. We see it differently. It doesn’t make us mean. The one who comes up with the most obnoxious names doesn’t necessarily win Sean. And being angry doesn’t make you right.
Anne, it’s not that easy. You advocate a public policy position that reflects your personal beliefs, whether based in religion or not. The position you advocate is harming gay and lesbian couples and their children. It is no better than the KKK advocating for white supremacy. It can be a sincerely held belief, but disgusting all the same. To willingly put some children at a disadvantage is beyond the pale. If gay parents could marry, they could get the benefits of marriage, through the government and their employers. These benefits include health coverage, including for their children and the respected status of being married. Not giving them equal status tells their children, “society doesn’t think your parents are good enough; society doesn’t approve of your parents”. Is that a good message to send to children?
What you want is for the government to agree with your position, that gay people are to be considered inferior and defective. That’s what seems to bother people like you on this issue: that you’re losing the public relations battle, as more and more people accept gays and lesbians, and that you’re losing the government’s support of your position.
@Sean
“You advocate a public policy position that reflects your personal beliefs, whether based in religion or not. The position you advocate is harming gay and lesbian couples and their children. It is no better than the KKK advocating for white supremacy. It can be a sincerely held belief, but disgusting all the same. ”
Unless you are willing to apply your argument to all sexual behaviour and randomly defined relationships, which you consistenly prove that you’re not, then your position is as limited as the white supremacists.
Disgusting is a matter of opinion. You’ve read my postition. It doesn’t have anything to do with disregard for homosexuals. Stop trying to paint it as something it’s not just to make yourself appear morally superior.
“What you want is for the government to agree with your position, that gay people are to be considered inferior and defective.”
No Sean, that’s what you say I want. You are constantly putting words into other peoples mouths, again in order for you to claim moral supperiority.
I don’t do what you do Sean. I don’t put other people down in order to elevate myself or my position.
What I want is for the distinct importance of men and women to be recognized as essential within the context of families, because to do otherwise is to deny children of their true sense of purpose and the beauty and power of nature which will ultimately create confusion for them.
“Unless you are willing to apply your argument to all sexual behaviour and randomly defined relationships, which you consistenly prove that you’re not, then your position is as limited as the white supremacists.”
That doesn’t make any sense. It is not my responsibility to go to bat for polygamists, if that’s what you’re implying. That’s a red herring and seems to be the preferred veil that anti-gay marriage people are hiding behind: that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest marriage. Ok, then, let’s not feed any starving children in Africa, because we can’t fee all of them. If you want to play the “all or nothing game”, I can play, too.
“Disgusting is a matter of opinion. You’ve read my postition. It doesn’t have anything to do with disregard for homosexuals. Stop trying to paint it as something it’s not just to make yourself appear morally superior.”
What’s disgusting is your breezy ability to leave the children of same-sex couples unprotected, and left to think that society thinks ill of their parents. This aspect of being anti-gay marriage fascinates me, even while people like you claim your concerns are for the children. Evidently not the children of same-sex couples! For once, I’d love to chat with someone on this issue who admits, “yeah, I know kids would be better off if their parents could marry, but I feel so strongly that gay people must be stopped from marrying that I can accept the harm to children my position causes.”
“No Sean, that’s what you say I want. You are constantly putting words into other peoples mouths, again in order for you to claim moral supperiority. I don’t do what you do Sean. I don’t put other people down in order to elevate myself or my position. What I want is for the distinct importance of men and women to be recognized as essential within the context of families, because to do otherwise is to deny children of their true sense of purpose and the beauty and power of nature which will ultimately create confusion for them.”
I do not put words in other peoples’ mouths. I can usually deduce, from discussing this issue, where they’re coming from. It’s obvious to me that a lot of people don’t want the government to stop discriminating against gay people, because so long as the government does it, it rationalizes personal dislike of gay people. We went through this same phenomenon (and still do, to some extent) when blacks are extended equal rights as whites: the racists don’t want to be left out in the cold, with the government “abandoning” them and providing cover for their racism.
I do have the morally superior position, even if I am not morally superior. It is morally inferior to promote a public policy that harms a particular group, and worse, their children.
All the crap about children is irrelevant to same-sex marriage. What you want is to have same-sex PARENTING outlawed. I invite you to pursue that, although I see limited opportunity for success. Outlawing same-sex marriage does not limit in any way the right of same-sex couples to raise children, if they wish. Your proposed remedy doesn’t solve the perceived problem, in other words.