Standing as we are two days after the first gay marriage took place in California, it’s important to take stock of where the dialogue on gay rights is going to go from here. Arguably, it’s more complex than I’ve let on. For a conservative – namely, one who is, on the issue of marriage, willing to give tradition the benefit of the doubt, and credit it as more than mere habit – there are arguably two ways to approach gay marriage in the post-California era. One may approach it responsibly or irresponsibly; with careful acceptance, or with untempered panic and fear.
For the responsible conservative approach, one need look no farther than our friend at “The Big Stick,” who remains a credit to his side of the partisan fence. Writing there, Progressive Conservative accepts the course California has taken, while wondering with trepidation what the future holds for the children of gay couples. Truly, I suppose, we don’t know. I have a hunch, that life will continue much the same as it always has, with some good parents and some bad parents. After all, idiocy knows no partisan, sexual, or gendered lines. Fifty years from now, I doubt a study of who is a good parent, and who is not, will find any clustered data points along the lines of sexual orientation. But one never knows. At worst, it’s an experiment with no sure outcome, but one that we owe it to ourselves to try. Democracy in America has always been a roll of the dice; as the world’s first great democracy, our entire existence has been an experiment that shows no signs of ending. I applaud “The Big Stick” for asking responsible questions without bias.
The National Review, of course, has taken the opposite approach. Maggie Gallagher, of some reprehensible political “think” tank, levels three accusations at gay marriage: (1) it will destroy fidelity as a precept of marriage, since gays are promiscuous; (2) it will lead to polygamy being acceptable next, and; (3) it amounts to a suppression of religious belief in some instances.
While all of Gallagher’s arguments are wrong, some are more wrong than others.
Gallagher notes that some gays don’t take to marriage as it’s currently understood by heterosexuals; if you’re a believer in “queer theory,” you object to marriage as too hetero-normative, and inadequate to capture the unique spirit of gay relationships. And, some gay couples have been known to “swing,” swapping spouses, apparently. The former is a reason to not force people to get married, but not a reason to foreclose marriage to willing parties; the latter is a practice undertaken by some couples – gay or straight! – from which Gallagher would like to extrapolate a trend, to be imputed only to homosexuals. Gallagher talks as if infidelity is a uniquely homosexual invention. She says:
But hey, if the word “marriage” can be redefined as a civil-rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like “monogamy” or “fidelity”?
That some couples do marriage differently – even poorly – has never been a reason to foreclose heterosexual couples from marrying and defining their relationship as they see fit. The state has never undertaken to define marriage to heterosexual spouses: Gallagher would have us deny gays the right to marry, just because some of them view the concept differently, while ignoring the fact that not all heterosexuals agree on the level of fidelity and intimacy required in a marriage. Marriage means different things to different people, regardless of their sexuality. To imply that only gays seek to push the limits of what “marriage” means is to be blind.
Further, Gallagher is missing out on an opportunity. Since the public identity of the gay community is in a nascent, evolving state, extending the marriage right at this point could have a formative influence on the nature of gay relationships, even potentially defining what course gay culture takes. For example, ask which came first. There’s no saying if the polyamorous couples she points to are a result of the lack of the marriage right, and the resultant signal that the lack sends to gay society – “this isn’t yours.” Arguably if marriage became permissible for gay men and women, homosexual identity may start to define itself by the concept, slowly becoming more normal and acceptable to heterosexual society. Maybe that’s what Gallagher’s really afraid of.
Her second objection – that gay marriage imports a slippery slope to polygamy – is a scurrilous point barely worth rebutting. If Gallagher can’t think up a state interest other than “tradition” that’s implicated by the abusive practice of polygamy, she’s deliberately holding back.
Finally, and most interestingly, Gallagher imagines the extension of the marriage right to gay couples as a form of religious suppression. She fears that:
[O]nce the [marriage equality] principle is in the law, the next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.
Gallagher imagines a world where religious groups lose their tax-exempt status because they preach against homosexuality, where Catholic adoption centers can no longer discriminate regarding whom they give their foundlings. Odds are, she’s partially right. There has not been an exception from laws of general application for religious organizations for a very long time. You can’t kill someone, say it’s your religion, and get away. And that’s the cost of living in a pluralist society. Deal with it.
And you can’t discriminate in employment, say it’s your religion, and get the lawsuit dismissed. Except that you can.
Before Gallagher’s dystopia takes hold, as she points out, there would probably be some legislative exceptions: church adoption agencies, for example, could be statutorily excused from nondiscrimination laws to preserve free exercise in that sense. But more importantly than that, the law already recognizes religious organizations’ rights to discriminate in some matters. Private orthodox Jewish schools, just like Catholic churches, are excused from statutes which stymie gender discrimination. The Constitution and the law are both more flexible than Gallagher is willing to imagine. No law would ever force a church to hire a gay pastor, odds are, no law would ever touch the church-run adoption agency. And thanks to the first amendment, no law would ever jail a preacher for decrying homosexuality – not in America at least. Tax exempt status is another issue entirely. But you can’t turn a church into a PAC for free.
The best rebuttal to Gallagher’s final point, though, is compromise. Most gay rights activists, like myself, are willing to meet conservatives halfway. We don’t want to meddle in private affairs; we don’t want to dictate what’s said or done in your church. But we do want equal rights for gay men and women outside the doors of the church, in the public sphere. And, as California and Massachusetts have shown, that’s not so scary.
Just wanted to say HI. I found your blog a few days ago on Technorati and have been reading it over the past few days.
Posted by Mike Harmon | June 19, 2008, 9:37 pmGlad to have you Mike; thanks for reading.
Posted by Ames | June 19, 2008, 9:46 pmThanks for the kind words Ames.
I have to say that I actually believe polygamy should be legal. If one can get past all the LDS weirdness and look at the hundreds of off-the-books polygamists marriages in this country, most are very healthy. To be sure, it takes a very special group of people to make it work and it should be a matter of choice between consent adults but I think there is some merit to these marriages when done right.
I also think that if we accept gay marriage we have to accept polygamy. The pro side of the gay marriage debate argues that they are discriminated against based on gender. Polygamists have a valid arguement that they are being discriminated against based on numbers.
I do not suggest we accept polygamy as a way of undercutting gay marriage by opening pandora’s box, but because I truly believe the two go hand-in-hand. I’ve often wondered how gay marriage proponents can fight so hard for their goals but not support another kind of non-traditional arrangement.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | June 19, 2008, 10:10 pmLove your blog, Ames. Very impressive. I put it on my favorites list.
Posted by LMLM | June 19, 2008, 10:23 pmThanks to both :-) ! Glad you like it LMLM.
PC, did you ever see Big Love? I don’t offer the show as evidence, just as a good show. You might like it. <3s to HBO.
I think the problem for me is this. (1) Obviously, churches can do whatever they want, but (2) the state can’t give benefits to three “spouses,” meaning that (3) one of the spouses would always be “on top” of the others, thus creating power structures that aren’t pleasant. And to top it off, I see polygamy as always being a very submissive arrangement that’s conducive to someone getting screwed out of something, and tons of litigation erupting. I don’t know if that’s the most well-thought out position I have, though, so I need to do some reading on it… I’m interested to hear that you’re for it though. So few people are, and even fewer people that I respect. Hearing that you’re on that side means another respectable person endorsing it, means I have to do some serious thinkin’. I’ll still hang my hat on the distaste for the power structure it inevitably engenders.
Posted by Ames | June 19, 2008, 10:29 pmWith regards to only one spouse being eligible for benefits, from a moral standpoint, how can limiting benefits to only one other spouse per household be justified? Households with multiple children already have coverage extended to all of them. Why not spouses, too?
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 19, 2008, 11:04 pmI haven’t seen that show but I think the wife watches it.
I base most of my support on some pretty positive stories i’ve heard on NPR and read about. Maybe they were minority cases, but they made some good points for acceptance.
I concur with Radioactive. I carry two kids on my policy. Why not two wives for someone else. I have several Muslim coworkers and i believe plural marriages are a important tradition in that culture.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | June 19, 2008, 11:17 pmI think the problem might be less the theoretical bounds of the law, than it is the practical realities that make polygamy abuse in the fact. Child and spousal abuse are replete in polygamous groups – 6 Appalachian J. L. 101 – meaning it might be the FLDS that ruined plural marriage, if not as a legal concept, then as a political fact, for America.
Good point on the child thing.
Posted by Ames | June 19, 2008, 11:31 pmOH NO! Maggie Gallagher is right on point 1!
Posted by James F | June 20, 2008, 7:33 amIf any of this fails the laugh test, I apologize. I’ve got a pretty orthodox lifestyle and am not a very curious person.
A friend of mine compares marriage to incorporating (law school girls, hopeless romantics.) And plural marriage makes me think of that. I think there’s a greater potential for abuse of the law in plural marriage than there is with extending benefits to multiple kids. I’d have a legal obligation to care for my multiple kids, so the multiple benefits helps with that.
On the other hand, to provide an extreme example, what’s to stop me from marrying 100 women, who all live in different places and don’t need me, and gaming the system to extend benefits to them? Any limitation on numbers beyond 1+1 would be pretty artificial. (“Four wives is OK, but five would throw the world into a tailspin.”)
Could I marry every single woman in the city of Cincinnati? Hell, since I’m married to multiple women, they can be married to me now and to someone they actually love later. Interlocking marriage structures would get complicated fast.
Another thing to consider is the conservative initiative to end the tax code’s “marriage penalty.” My tax professor demonstrated to me in a way that I can no longer explain that you either have a marriage penalty or a marriage benefit. If plural marriages are on the table at that point (and how could you discriminate against them in the tax code?) it seems you’d heighten the perverse incentive for sham marriages.
Posted by Collin | June 20, 2008, 9:37 amYou bring up an interesting point, PC. I’m a bit inconsistent in that I strongly believe gay marriage should be legal, but am opposed to polygamy. I consider the argument that gay marriage will contribute to a moral breakdown in society to be hogwash. Yet, I consider the same argument to be true of polygamy.
I would love to be berated for this view. I’m sure nearly all polygamist relationships in the LDS church are constructive, strong, beneficial bonds. Every mormon family I’ve known (granted, none of them polygamous) has consisted of better people than I am.
But I worry about a society that encourages multiple partners. In many societies that do encourage (and even celebrate) multiple wives, widespread adoption of the practice leads to an under class of males that breeds resentment and anger.
Let’s say you have 100 people — 50 men, 50 women. In theory, all of the men have a good chance of finding a stable relationship. But if you have 10% of the men marry two wives, then suddenly you have 45 men and 40 women available. You have the same fraction of those that don’t marry as before, but an additional 5 men that are left without prospects. If any of that 10% take 3 or more wives, it tilts even further.
Obviously women have a choice in this matter as well. If three people love eachother and want to spend there lives together, I am in no place to judge that. But given human nature, I worry about a society where 5 or 10 percent of men are effectively barred from having male/female relationships.
Posted by Matt | June 20, 2008, 12:04 pmMatt, your argument is interesting, but I think it’s actually pro-polygamy. (By the way, is no one talking about the idea of many guys for one woman?)
You know as well as I do that the 5-10% of men who get left out will not just happen to be left out by bad luck. The good ones will still get taken. The left-out guys will be left out because they are ugly, stupid, irritating, Red Sox fans, or all of the above. Polygamy removes them from the gene pool and stops their ability to plague us in future generations! Rad!
The additional selective pressure would create a eugenics scenario wherein, accordingly, even creationists would be able to observe the effects of evolution. “Well I’ll be damned if there aren’t fewer douchebags now than there were 40 years ago! Maybe there’s something to this evil-ution.”
Polygamy: moving the human race ahead. Moving scientific knowledge ahead. And oh yeah, you can have multiple wives.
Posted by Collin | June 20, 2008, 12:24 pmAmes, if you use the worst examples of polygamy to argue against it, sooner or later someone is going to cite the worst examples of homosexual relationships. Aceeptance of either is based on the premise that there will be more good than bad.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | June 20, 2008, 12:44 pmSounds like a win/win scenario!
I was going to bring up wives having multiple husbands, but the fact is that the vast majority of societies that encourage plural marriages do so to allow for one man, multiple wives. Similarly, in many cases, societies that encourage polygamy are already societies that limit women’s rights. We have little information to go by on societies that both treat women equally *and* allow for multiple spouses.
Even in the US, we most often hear “Polygamist” when it’s followed by the word “Cult.” Not the best of samples :p
Also, you’re a madman. Your scenario would doom us all :O The douchebag fratboy demographic will out compete all other groups for the highest echelon of women. Then, it cascades down the chain as poor musicians and prodigious investment bankers gather two women here, three there. Then, one of two things will happen: bloggers will, in a fit of rage, man the attack dirigibles and rain hell from the tag clouds on the simian Frat Boy silverbacks, or will evolve into sterile worker drones that subsist on mining for flaws in this week’s Lost script.
Though on a related note, are any of y’all familiar with the Screwfly solution? It uses math similar to the anti-polygamist argument I posted above. In order to exterminate screwflies, scientists irradiated large numbers of males, making them sterile, and released them into the wild. These males competed with fertile males for mates, thus lowering the number of females available to fertile males. Rinse, repeat, and the screwflies were extinct within a few generations.
I’m not saying polygamy would destroy society, but it interests me how slight shifts in male/female ratio can affect a population. Of course, gorillas and lions get along just fine…
Posted by Matt | June 20, 2008, 12:48 pmi think it is interesting that only men are in on this discussion … (though, i am making big assumptions about gender based on what i think the user name implies.)
off topic, but ames, your last conservapedia post is on the dashboard under science … well done again!
Posted by didionsmommy | June 20, 2008, 1:04 pmLOL! Thanks! And that, dear friend, is the closest to being related to “science” that Conservapedia will ever get :-)
Posted by Ames | June 20, 2008, 3:13 pmMatt, very funny!
(On a serious intellectual note, the many men – one woman thing would be – and I know nothing about history – pretty unprecedented outside of the world of beehives. And it’d have to be included if this is going to be done in the name of equality. Thus, interlocking marriages would make my head explode. “I’m married to three women. One of them is married to two other men. One of them is married to three other men. And the other is married to a woman and to a man, who are also married to each other.” If you don’t think this would happen, visit Berkeley, California. JK.)
Also, there’s a facebook group called “Just Say No to DBs” (and it’s not talking about defensive backs.) I was thrilled to find that a friend of mine was in it, until I realized her membership was more of an aspirational thing, like “I hope someday I can learn to say no to DBs.” Having observed their remarkable and inexplicable success on the singles market, I conclude that DBs will either be stopped by a concerted effort like the facebook group, or . . . I’ll just have to become one.
And, by 2028, shirt collars would not be able to fold down.
Posted by Collin | June 20, 2008, 3:13 pm