JK: So, we got a reader who submitted an article on Proposition 8, the California referendum that would define marriages as exclusively heterosexual. Marc and I don't agree with it, and his article speaks for both of us... but it was a different take, and we've published a number of guest columns from people we've disagreed with before. Add this to the pile.
No on Prop 8 is Anti-Feminist and Regressive
by Wayne Lusvardi, MSW, Pasadena, CA
As a former court protective services worker for abused and neglected children, I am in favor of Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage; however, I am unpersuaded by all the arguments for and against it.
The arguments in favor of the Prop 8 are overly defensive, conjectural, seemingly discriminatory and moralistic for the wrong reasons. Concern over a speculative future harm to children as the weakest members of society will not likely overcome the perception of actual discrimination against gays today in the eyes of much of the liberal public. Moreover, many people believe on religious and secular grounds that children should be taught not to discriminate against gays.
Conversely, the arguments against Prop 8 on the basis of injustice, unfairness and the unhappiness and social stigma inflicted on gays by denying them the sanction of marriage equally miss the mark. Gays have already mostly been granted rights and protections of quasi-marriage (power of attorney, family status for hospital visitation, benefits rollover). The social status of gay couples is essentially no different than that of anyone else who lives in an unmarried status, including widows.
The notion that progressive “change” will overcome the “centuries’ long struggle for civil rights” for gay marriage is historically myopic.
The past Progressive reforms of busing in our public schools (“white flight”) and recent reform of affordable housing credit as a civil right (“sub-prime” loan foreclosures and investor wipe-outs) are tragic cases of the unintended consequences of the politicizing of “civil rights.”
If Prop 8 passes we may sadly see "straight flight" by parents, who were formerly tolerant of gays, pulling their kids out of public schools. Parents who were formerly laid back about teaching about gay rights in public schools may actually start teaching and preaching to their children the opposite at home. Needless to say, this would not further Progressivism.
The prospect of Muslim polygamous marriages proliferating in California due to rejecting Prop 8 does not seem far fetched, hysterical, or a scare tactic given the thousands of such marriages in Italy and Great Britain. Is this what we want in "Progressive" California?
Parenthetically, secularization has imposed rules of the game on religious believers, to wit: "You are completely free to live by your religion in private, but keep it out of the public sphere." Jews have embraced this public-private dichotomy because it has afforded them protection and opportunities. Protestants have also accepted this bargain somewhat less enthusiastically, albeit with the option of withdrawal by sectarianism. A problem is that Islam is not a religious faith but a system of political and social organization that does not accept the modern public-private separation and does not sanction toleration, assimilation or intermarriage. Failure to ratify Prop 8 would send a signal that the public-private arrangement between religion and modern society is over. Your private marriage and your religion would be in the public domain. This would be highly regrettable.
This is not to say that civil rights for gays have been a bad thing. To the contrary, civil rights for gays have led to social tolerance. And social tolerance has brought about gays seeking to institutionalize and stabilize their partnerships instead of the social chaos which existed previously. This is relatively a good and Progressive thing.
Notwithstanding all of the above, I have two objections to same-sex marriage which I have not been addressed in the media. One: it is anti-feminist; and two: it is regressive.
No on Prop 8 is Anti-Feminist
The word “mother” comes from the Latin word “mater” for mother. And “mater” is what matters in marriage. Marriage is unavoidably built around female sexuality and procreation. Marriage can only concern a relationship to a woman for procreation. Marriage is the opposite of concubinage, which is an involuntary relationship with a man of higher status typically in a traditional society.
A social order that doesn’t protect a woman from rape or incest or concubinage can’t give women freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health (re: John Stuart Mill). Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in a modern society. Women’s freedom to control access to their body for procreation is what modern marriage is all about. Without that there is no societal or religious basis for laws to protect marriage, particularly gay marriage.
Defining marriage down to a mere contract between companions or non-procreative sex partners will only end up harming all women for if everyone can marry, no one needs to and it becomes meaningless. Women will ultimately suffer most. Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women. Traditional man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine.
Same sex marriage as currently proposed without strictures against polygamy, arranged marriages, and under-age marriages (or even contrived Oedipal marriages between an adult child and their parent for medical insurance coverage) would likely result in something anti-feminist and socially and politically Regressive. Modernity has liberated gays from discrimination but it has also led to a yearning to overcome the alienation and psychological "homelessness" that accompanies modernity. Same-sex marriage can thus be seen as a counter-modern movement (Peter Berger, et. al. The Homeless Mind).
A pro-feminine position would perhaps look favorably on gay marriage for lesbians, given that artificial insemination plus married lesbians would equal women with control of and a support structure for procreation. And lesbian couples have a lower level of failure than heterosexuals or male homosexuals.
No on Prop 8 is Regressive
My second objection to a No Vote on Prop 8 and the unthinking race to embrace gay marriage is that it is politically regressive and will violate the successful social contract of tolerance that has been built in our society.
Up to now there has been an absence of passion about opposing same sex marriage. The attitude of most of the majority public is reflected in the popular joke: "Same-sex marriage? Sure: Welcome to the joys of alimony!" Most Americans have gravitated to look at homosexuality as something to be avoided wherever possible. But they are tolerant toward homosexuals and have conceded them all sorts of rights, even superior rights and sinecures in the workplace, as long as they do not usurp the traditional meaning and sanctity of marriage. This social tolerance contract has now been abrogated by the California Supreme Court.
There is no guarantee that ending this social tolerance contract will be a good thing. In all likelihood, it will result in tragic and regressive unintended consequences. The negative consequences of gay marriage, as presently left vague and open, are as predictable as those who foretold the coming disaster of our financial institutions in 2004 (see: Mark C. Taylor, Confidence Games: Money and Markets in a World Without Redemption).
Sociology, Not Theology
I suspect the reason that I find the arguments on both sides of California's Prop 8 so unpersuasive is that what separates people on this issue is not ideology or theology but sociology. Those in the professional class (law, education, media, and liberal clergy serving the professional class) are predominantly in favor of same-sex marriage and oppose Prop 8; and those in the commercial and working classes and the military (and their clergy) oppose gay marriage and favor the protection of marriage under Prop 8. (If this means anything, my carpenter is gay and is opposed to Prop 8).
There seems to be no way to transcend this social division given that both Christianity and Judaism are captured by social class and culture and have been unable to articulate a middle ground theology (theodicy) of toleration and marriage in a modern context (see Berger and Berger: The War Over the Family: Capturing the Middle Ground, 1983).
There is another possible sociological reason that there is so much conflict over this issue: many of the clergy leading the campaign for gay marriage are gay; conversely many of the clerical opponents of gay marriage are straights. Demagoguery, self interest and fund raising seem to reign supreme and we are left without religion to transcend social divisions and bring about reconciliation. Churches and synagogues that are nothing more than social clubs will be used as social “clubs.”
If we willy nilly grant marriage rights to one group - gays - we will find it politically impossible to deny such rights to others scripted with their own resumes of "victimization." And politicians will always be ready to politicize modern marriage by expanding it beyond its original purpose.
Marriage isn’t a conspiracy of patriarchs, straights, or the respectable capitalistic bourgeoisie class. It is part of the divine and natural order – only through marriage can the world and social order persist. And it is also part of the larger social contract of modern society.
It is more important to exclusively preserve the freedom of marriage for women at this time than to throw out the social tolerance contract with nothing to replace it but backlash and a social order built around an anti-American notion of social “pillarization” as found in the Dutch social model. Preserving marriage exclusively for procreation and women's freedom transcends the politics and religion of Left and Right and is the most Progressive option at this time until a consensus about marriage can be agreed upon.
Even though I am disappointed with the arguments both for and against Prop 8, I nonetheless urge you to VOTE YES ON PROP 8 as the Feminist and Progressive option at this time.
Its a great column, thanks for presenting it. But shouldn't the title reflect the advice of the columnist?
I'm headed into a meeting and on my Blackberry, but to make it short every substantive argument made here is specious.
Marriage - as a way of creating stable family bonds to enable successful childrearing does not involve protecting women against concubinage. We're kind of past that as a society.
The post-gay marriage backlash you propose is a figment of the author's imagonation.
Every point made in this post is equally weak.
There are-as I've pointed out-respectable arguments against gay marriage. This piece raises none of them.
A.L.
"The prospect of Muslim polygamous marriages proliferating in California due to rejecting Prop 8 does not seem far fetched, hysterical, or a scare tactic given the thousands of such marriages in Italy and Great Britain. Is this what we want in "Progressive" California?"
Neither England not Italy recognize polygamy. That it exists is hardly grounds for panic- any more than polygamy in Utah should be feared as a rising trend. Those arguing that polygamy should be legal do so on a religious freedom argument. Those that advocate marriage do so on an equal protection argument. Apples and oranges.
Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women."
Aside from being a specicious argument predicated on a mideival definition of marriage, this also discounts the fact that at least half of gay marraiges will be between lesbians. If protecting women is paramount, who is protecting gay women from the looming threat of the harem?
"But they are tolerant toward homosexuals and have conceded them all sorts of rights, even superior rights and sinecures in the workplace, as long as they do not usurp the traditional meaning and sanctity of marriage. This social tolerance contract has now been abrogated by the California Supreme Court."
Now thats just offensive. Much like those uppity African Americans breaking the social contract of segregation. You are suggesting that gays have been gifted with peace (when not being dragged behind pickup trucks) and how dare they upset the applecart by expecting equal rights? We're beyond that kind of demagoguery.
"If we willy nilly grant marriage rights to one group - gays - we will find it politically impossible to deny such rights to others scripted with their own resumes of "victimization."
Like whom? The legal question is straight forward- government cannot disallow a contract because of the gender of the participants any more than their race. Government CAN (and does) limit contracts by number of participants (power of attorney) and between adult (humans) of sound mind (every contract). This idea that polygamy or beastiality are waiting in the wings is a complete strawman.
All I can say is that "straight flight" from the public schools would sure solve the problem of classroom overcrowding.
This is ridiculous. This line:
Gay marriage robs something that belongs exclusively to women.
Encapsulates much of the argument, and once we realize that, we can see that it's nothing more than academic language supporting Mr. Blue's (and others') baseless assertions that marriage between two men somehow diminishes or takes something away from someone else.
No one has ever demonstrated to me how this is so. No married woman today, nor any woman married a year from now, would be any more married or any less married based on the marital status of two other random men. Nothing is taken away from anyone.
Nor do I believe that the author of the column speaks for all feminists. I know that there are various brands and flavors of feminism out there, and I'm sure that some are short-sighted enough to take the position above. The feminists I hang out with, however, are a little more rigorous and thoughtful in their application of gender studies, and would rightfully denounce the above arguments as anti-feminist because they enshrine in law and enforce in culture the stereotype of woman-as-mother... which not all females actually want.
I almost stopped reading there, and in some ways I'm sorry I didn't, because while the above was silly, the following is actively loathesome:
My second objection to a No Vote on Prop 8 and the unthinking race to embrace gay marriage is that it is politically regressive and will violate the successful social contract of tolerance that has been built in our society.
Let me translate this: "Don't stand up for your rights, gay people. Until now, we've been ignoring you, except for those times we're tying you to the back of pick-up trucks and dragging you in the streets. But if you do stand up for your rights, well, then, you're gonna get smacked down, and you'll have only yourselves to blame. I won't say how, I'll just mumble ominously about 'tragic' consequences."
It's pre-emptive victim-blaming, and it's disgusting.
If this had been applied to 60's era minorities wanting really equal and non-separate treatment, it would be denounced as racist tripe in a heartbeat.
To A.L.
Please be more specific than just trying to label in knee-jerk fashion my article as "specious." I'm not trying to have an argument, but promote a discussion. Where would YOU draw the line with state sanction of marriage? If no line is drawn would this result in anarchy and polygamy? If a totalitarian line is drawn then religious marriage would be eliminated as in Soviet Russia. The only alternative to totalitarianism or anarchy is some form of limited government. Where would YOU draw the limit? I attempted to draw a line at procreation and women. Again, where would you draw it? It's easy to discount or dismiss someone's argument by labeling it with cliches. Be more specific.
To Marcus Vitruvius:
Wow, you try to smear my article with things I never wrote, inferred, or intended. What a cheap shot! This is the tactic of someone who is immature and doesn't have an argument - personally destroy the author (right out of Marx). I tried to approach this from a liberal framework, not that of a bigot which you want to mis-characterize me as.
Armed,
Actually....
Marriage - as a way of creating stable family bonds to enable successful childrearing does not involve protecting women against concubinage. We're kind of past that as a society.
Co-habitation, and the practice of having multiple children with multiple women in the name of sexual liberation is, in my mind, concubinage.
That is a circumstance which is very unfair to women, and the children who's father care more about their own liberation than their responsibilities. Even a check at the end of the month is a small fraction of what children and deserve from the fathers.
The post-gay marriage backlash you propose is a figment of the author's imagonation.
I'm afraid your naivety is showing here. Its good natured, and believes in other's good nature. But denies real outcomes.
He's right in that England already recognizes polygamous marriage to a certain degree for reasons much like those you speak for gay marriage along the lines that recognizing them helps stabilize and regulate them.
Every point made in this post is equally weak.
When you get from the blackberry to a more comfortable writing post, I'd be happy to hear why.
There are-as I've pointed out-respectable arguments against gay marriage. This piece raises none of them.
What are the respectable reasons?
And tell me how your arguments amount to changing marriage, instead of just instituting the stabilization through a program like DP's that California already has? I don't see DP's as a failure, or insufficient, do you?
"Where would YOU draw the line with state sanction of marriage? If no line is drawn would this result in anarchy and polygamy?"
I'll answer- the same place we draw the line for power of attorney. Two adult individuals of sound mind. And for the same reasons- if im on a respirator there needs to be 1 individual with my proxy. And it cant be a cat or a pet rock or a child.
Hey, Wayne?
Don't pretend I'm an idiot, and I won't pretend you're one either.
Tell me, clearly and precisely, how a marriage between two men robs any woman of any thing.
Tell me, clearly and precisely, just exactly what sort of "tragic and regressive unintended consequences" you imagine.
"That is a circumstance which is very unfair to women, and the children who's father care more about their own liberation than their responsibilities. Even a check at the end of the month is a small fraction of what children and deserve from the fathers."
So where do we sign up to outlaw divorce? Which is MANY orders of magnitude more responsible for what you are describing the gay marriage could possibly be. Let me know when that is taken care of and we can discuss the theoretical damage gay marriage could do through some nebulous damage to the institution.
From your link to polygamy in England:
"Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal."
Sounds terrifying. Of course gay marriage is illegal in the UK so i find the connection... unconvincing.
To Mark Buehner:
Thank you for your thoughts.
My background is in sociology. Getting rid of the legal sanction of marriage that existed prior to Judge George's ruling MAY have negative and regressive unintended consequences. That doesn't make me a bigot as you want to portray me. Such a cheap tactic doesn't reflect well on you.
I tried to address the lesbian marriage issue in my article. So I think your criticism is unfair here. Please re-read my article.
This is an emotional issue. After you've calmed down email me back so we can have a meaningful discussion as you have the start of some good criticisms.
Please address comments to the arguments and their counters, rather than to the (presumed) qualities of the people making them.
Thank you.
Maybe put a leash on the old condescension there my friend, and i'll make it a point not to expound on my feelings about sociology as being anything akin to actual science.
How about some data as opposed to tossing out fanciful opinions as fact?
How about this one- you claim:
"Traditional man-woman marriage is not anti-gay, it is pro-feminine."
And yet the data shows that married men live longer and healthier than unmarried men, on the average 10 YEARS longer, while married women live about 4 years longer.
If life and health are the most important things there are, the data shows that in fact marriage benefits MEN most strongly. Denying that benefit to gays, one could argue, could be costing them years off their lives.
Thanks for this different perspective on this issue. After hearing the same shouting points going back and forth for months, a different take is refreshing.
As for outlawing divorce - that is another issue. That an orange can be cut in half does not make an apple an orange.
I'm a married father. I want my wife and daughter to have their rights protected as well as mine are protected. I want the same for my homosexual friends, family members, and co-workers.
While it may sound like contradiction to some, this is why I voted YES on Prop 8.
This is my basic argument for Prop 8.
1. True rights do not obligate others without their consent.
2. State licenses are granted by the people of a state per their consent.
3. The people of California have only consented to issue marriage licenses to bride-groom couples, as reaffirmed in their voting Yes on Proposition 22 in 2000.
4. Therefore, voluntary associations without a bride or a groom do not have a right to a state-issued marriage license.
5. Since there is no right to a state-issued marriage license, the California Supreme Court erred when ordering the people to issue marriage licenses even though no bride or no groom would be involved.
6. Voting for Proposition 8 restores our rights without hurting anyone.
Please note that nowhere in this argument is there hatred or bigotry expressed, nor religion invoked.
I go into more details here.
Ken, please tell me where that logic couldnt have been used with equal eloquence to prohibit interracial marraige.
I suggest that its a good idea to put every anti-gay marraige argument to that test. If you can exchange interracial with gay and not poke a hole in the logic, you have a problem in my opinion.
Mark Vitruvius:
No one called or inferred your're an "idiot." Please refrain from slander and provocation.
Here's a like to an article worth reading titled The Russian Abolition of Marriage written in 1926 in the Atlantic Monthly.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm
What are your thoughts?
Well Mark, I won't presume to speak for Ken, but for me, the big difference is that race is an is and homosexuality is a does. I think granting special is status on the basis of behavior opens a can of worms that really should stay shut. Where would it end? Anyone with "unusual" sexual "orientations" could claim a special status. My stepmom is a sheep?
Ultimately, though, as passionately as I oppose gay "marriage," I will concede that there is no logically compelling argument or solid evidence I can give in advance that it will adversely affect real marriage and the nuclear family. But then, I would have had to make the same concession about no-fault divorce, changes in sexual mores, and legalized abortion forty years ago. Although anyone with a lick of common sense could have foreseen it, there was no real evidence for it until years later. So I have the utmost confidence that when the liberal/libertarian coalition succeeds in putting this particular nail in the coffin of the nuclear family (which, unfortunately, it probably will) I will be entitled to a hearty "told you so" in the next 10-15 years.
"Well Mark, I won't presume to speak for Ken, but for me, the big difference is that race is an is and homosexuality is a does."
But gender is not. You can't pass a law saying woman can only see women doctors or women attorneys. You can't pass a law saying woman can only marry men. That is equal protection.
My argument is purely from parsing the reading of our constitution as it currently stands. The government cannot (and darn well should not) be in the business of 'sanctifying' marriage. The government can, and should, define and enforce contracts... one of which is marraige. But in doing so the government cannot violate our constitution, and one of our tenants is that gender cannot be used to preclude people from engaging in a government approved contact.
Mark B.: I'll answer- the same place we draw the line for power of attorney.
Yes, the survival of our species has always depended on the power of attorney. Hey, don't we already have a power of attorney? What purpose does it serve to make marriage just another power of attorney?
if im on a respirator there needs to be 1 individual with my proxy. And it cant be a cat or a pet rock or a child.
But it can be, and probably is, a blood relative. So by your hastily constructed standard, blood relatives can marry. Is that what you're advocating? That would certainly be more "equal" than excluding them, wouldn't it?
So the importance of responsible procreation to society, that's all out the window. Ignore it completely. Instead, just think of marriage as if it were something entirely different and then you can apply an "equal treatment" test to it. Now that's sound reasoning.
It is also valuable to remember that the U.S. Supreme Court (I know, not quite the brilliant mind that Mark B. is) has already looked at the "equal protection" argument and necessarily rejected it. To argue that one non-procreative relationship should be called "marriage" and the rest shouldn't is certainly not an argument one can make from an "equality" perspective. It also requires one to believe that non-procreation is equal to procreation. If you believe that, I have an inner city to sell you.
"Yes, the survival of our species has always depended on the power of attorney. "
When did you establish the survival of our species depends on outlawing gay marriage? Why don't you start by establishing that fact... and dont forget the part where 50% of hetero marriages already end in divorce. Unless you think gay marriage will end more marriages than divorce (the mind reels), perhaps the survival of our species is better served by first outlawing divorce.
"But it can be, and probably is, a blood relative. So by your hastily constructed standard, blood relatives can marry. Is that what you're advocating?"
Sure. Why not? Inc*st certainly has as long historical record as you could like. It may be a bad idea, but I don't see why the government should have a say. The genetic risks are apparently overblown and it is legal in some states. Society hasnt come crashing down just yet. I don't know of anyone who has thrown their wedding band into the toilet in despair.
"So the importance of responsible procreation to society, that's all out the window."
What society are you living in? You look out that window or flip on tv and tell me what kind of danger gay marriage poses A SLIVER of what we see every single day. Gays cant procreate, the idea that heteros will stop out of, what, protest? is just ludicrous.
For all you people arguing to sanctity and graveness of marriage, what is this mechanism you are claiming that will cause everyone else to give up on it because gays get in the game?
If that petty truly is going end civilization (somehow) we probably don't deserve to survive.
I don't want to get into how my first point relates to other areas, because it will be a tangent when we should be focusing on marriage.
I dealt with interracial marriage on my blog, but I'll repeat some of my points here. (I believe we are all of one race - human, so I dislike using the term interracial, by the way.) These issues are apples and oranges. Notice that in Loving vs. Virginia, the court did not strike down laws preventing first cousins from marrying, nor did it institute same-sex marriage.
What the court did was strike down a marriage ban. In the past, we had laws against cohabitation and such so that an interracial marriage ban was truly a ban. That is not the case anymore. People of the same sex, homosexual or not, are free to live together, commit, make vows, have ceremonies, ask other people to consider them married, exchange rings, change their names, sign contracts, and register as domestic partners. With everything except the last, that involves voluntarily actions between consenting adults.
In fact, anyone could have circulated a petition to put an amendment on the California ballot to strike down the bride-groom requirement in state marriage licensing.
Back to interracial marriage... there was never a universal ban on interracial marriage in the U.S. Some places had it. But such marriages have been recognized as marriages throughout all of history and in every major religion (if not all sects). Same-sex marriage is a recent invention designed to obtain the state benefits of marriage (already there for domestic partners) and public affirmation (which is absurd without the consent of the public).
A black man and a white woman can reproduce. No man of any color can reproduce with another man of any color.
I agree with the author in that one of the purposes of marriage has traditionally been to protect women. Women who become pregnant can become physically and economically dependent due to the pregnancy and child-rearing. This is one of the reasons America evolved a "common-law" tradition of compelling marriage on co-habitators. Marriage has not always been a matter of choice, but a weapon of protection.
But that tradition has subsided, as has the expectation of permanent spousal support. In the last hundred years, we have witnessed the rise of the welfare state, information jobs, equal access to education, access to contraception and the rise of impersonal legal relationships (i.e., the ability to get a loan based upon impersonal considerations, not an old boys network).
In short, marriage is no longer a necessary or desirable safeguard for victimization of women. It remains a viable vehicle for ameliorating the cost and hardship of childbirth and child-rearing, but in states where same sex couples can adopt, I see no just reason to preclude those benefits to them.
" Notice that in Loving vs. Virginia, the court did not strike down laws preventing first cousins from marrying, nor did it institute same-sex marriage."
Nor could it, without massively overstepping the scope of the case.
"Back to interracial marriage... there was never a universal ban on interracial marriage in the U.S. Some places had it. "
There isn't a universal ban on single-sex marriage NOW. Since its becoming increasingly common world-wide doesn't your argument now turn on its head?
"Same-sex marriage is a recent invention designed to obtain the state benefits of marriage (already there for domestic partners) and public affirmation (which is absurd without the consent of the public)."
Gay marriage wasn't unheard of in antiquity (check wiki pedia links, i posted them last thread).
Regardless, equal rights protections are not subject to historical restraints. It has been our history to expand equality, not to allow the morays of history to dictate.
Women's suffrage was unheard of historically. I'm SURE somebody made that argument against extending women the vote.
"A black man and a white woman can reproduce. No man of any color can reproduce with another man of any color."
If reproduction is intrinsic to marriage, would you disagree with a law that forbid women over the age of menopause to marry? Or more precisely, do you think the courts would uphold such a ban?
Mark Buehner wrote above:
"This idea that polygamy or beastiality are waiting in the wings is a complete strawman."
Bestiality never mentioned in article.
Here's a link to an article from the LA Times no less entitled "Italy Grapples with Polygamy" LATimes, July 15, 2008. Link.
So, the concern about polygamy is not entirely speculative nor a strawman argument.
[ Link fixed. -- M.F. ]
"So, the concern about polygamy is not entirely speculative nor a strawman argument."
ITALY DOESNT ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE. You have not displayed any connection between the two.
I could claim that gay marriage leads to bear attacks and then point to bear attacks in Alaska as evidence. You have to establish some sort of causal link. Italy would be having this problem if homosexuality didnt exist.
Italy doesn't recognize same sex marriage. So, preventing same sex marriage would stop polygamy, no?
Mark B: Inc*st certainly has as long historical record as you could like. It may be a bad idea, but I don't see why the government should have a say.
So inc*stuous relationships are adopted into marriage by the same argumentation used to adopt "gay marriage." You have answered your own question:
Wayne: If we willy nilly grant marriage rights to one group - gays - we will find it politically impossible to deny such rights to others scripted with their own resumes of "victimization."
Mark B: Like whom? ... This idea that polygamy or beastiality are waiting in the wings is a complete strawman.
Thanks for proving otherwise. You have also shown how good you are at predicting the consequences of neutering marriage, since you couldn't even predict what your own argument would convince you of.
Did you notice how you referred to procreation in analyzing the impact of inc*st on marriage? Clearly you see the link between marriage and procreation that you claim doesn't exist.
(Note: You should look up terms before you try to use them. You probably meant red herring in the above statement. A strawman argument is what you are making when you say things like "the idea that heteros will stop [procreating] out of, what, protest? is just ludicrous.")
[ Tag closed. -- M.F. ]
Sorry to repeat Mark B's #27. I didn't hit refresh.
Sorry, missing a closing tag. :-6
[ No problem, fixed. -- M.F. ]
"Thanks for proving otherwise. You have also shown how good you are at predicting the consequences of neutering marriage, since you couldn't even predict what your own argument would convince you of."
You are assuming this is my first rodeo. I've had this debate a thousand times and already dismissed the inc*st argument. IE- its not a problem, why would i suggest it should be?
"Did you notice how you referred to procreation in analyzing the impact of inc*st on marriage? Clearly you see the link between marriage and procreation that you claim doesn't exist."
I was diffusing the argument you brought up. I referenced it as a non-factor. Councilor, now you're just being argumentative.
Like i said, if you want to define marriage by procreation there are a lot of sterile, infertile, post-menopausal folks out there that would like to have a word with you.
PD: Italy doesn't recognize same sex marriage. So, preventing same sex marriage would stop polygamy, no?
Striking this match won't cause a fire. There is a fire over there already and I have not struck my match, no?
In fact, Mark B. has already shown how his own flawed argumentation induces all kinds of unanticipated changes in marriage. Arguing about Italy isn't going to change that.
I leave it to the reader to decide who is using the flawed logic here.
I'd be vastly entertained to hear what kind of metro-sexual, bass driven, Abercrombe world Op-ed thinks we will be living in if gay marriage becomes the law. If the best argument you can come up with is unintended consequences, i'd say you've given up. ANYTHING can have unintended consequences. If we lived like that we wouldnt leave the house.
But you guys are supposing some vastly horrific fate is in store for us, i'm still waiting to hear the mechanism.
Make a prediction, what does the divorce rate rise to a year after gay marriage? 90%?
What does the illegitimacy rate go to? 99%?
Will spousal murder spike to untold levels?
Will blood run in the streets?
God forbid, somebody might marry their cousin.
Unintended consequences is a cop out. Tell me what's going to happen. Otherwise you're just making an emotional appeal.
Wayne, #17
You didn't call me an idiot, but you're treating me like one. Don't invoke unspecified "tragic and regressive unintended consequences," and expect me to ignore it. It's a sleazy, offensive tactic.
I also really don't care what Russians in 1926 had to say on the subject of marriage.
So again:
Tell me, clearly and precisely, how a marriage between two men robs any woman of any thing.
Tell me, clearly and precisely, just exactly what sort of "tragic and regressive unintended consequences" you imagine.
"Co-habitation, and the practice of having multiple children with multiple women in the name of sexual liberation is, in my mind, concubinage."
It may be so in your mind, but the women involved in these situations have a choice regarding whether they have sex, birth children, etc. The women involved can still, though unable to force anyone to marry them, require the irresponsible fathers of these children to support them financially. Marriage has nothing whatever to do with whether someone is willing to meet their obligations to children they father, so I am unclear how this idea has anything to do with gays legally using the word "marriage" to define their unions. Marriage today is about commitment to another person (a social contract with an emotional ceremony attached). It is not about procreation. By your standards, since I have been unable to have children, I should not have been allowed to marry. Please, I don't care how many classes you may have attended, offer your support to women without the dated, sexist conventional wisdom popular a couple of centuries ago and it will be easier to listen to the rest of your argument.
The State of Michigan had to deal with polygamy somewhere back in the 1840s with respect to American Indian marriage customs. You can look it up. (The fictionalized version is a book called, IIRC, "Laughing Whitefish".)
I seem to recall the US recently having to deal with divorce and child support issues in the case of a polygamous Saudi Arabian who was in the United States.
Israel had to deal with polygamy when the Yemenite Jews were airlifted into the new country.
None of this seemed to be impossible and none of it, of course, had anything to do with gay marriage. There are relatively easy ways of distinguishing polygamy from gay marriage, and there are social reasons that apply to the latter and not the former (e.g., intestate succession, but there are many others).
On interracial marriage, when all is said and done, that should have been legal everywhere, and your argument boils down to fecundity. A marriage, to you, must be capable of procreation. I'd like you to answer Mark's question about marriage for post-menopausal women.
Ah. Interesting claim. By "obligations", are you speaking purely of finances?
And is the obverse true? That is, does non-marriage also have nothing to do with it? In other words, if I'm some sports superstar who claims to have done 10,000 women and never used birth control, does this have no impact on the children that might have issued?
Just curious. Feel free to treat the question as spurious.
My personal view on the matter is that given how easy divorce has become, the entire institution of marriage is mostly a joke; and group marriages (not just "polygamy" per se) ought to be fostered by the state just to increase the chance of a nuclear couple surviving as any kids' effective parents. It would seem better than foster homes.
But gee, that messes up Mr Buehner's "power of attorney" red herring, so I guess it's a non-starter. I'm just some sort of weirdo. Ignore me.
PS: Anyone who chooses that approach will just have to head-fake the system. There is evidence of that already.
PPS: I wonder how much occulted-sharia four-wife action is already in place here. And I wonder when we'll find out...
Nort: and group marriages (not just "polygamy" per se) ought to be fostered by the state just to increase the chance of a nuclear couple surviving as any kids' effective parents.
If group marriages had such advantages, wouldn't they exist without state coercion? It seems to me that as I stand in here in a state of nature where same-sex marriage is illegal, there are same-sex couples in committed relationships. This bespeaks that the relationships have social and economic advantages for the couple. I do not look around and see group marriages outside of (a) foreign communities fostered in an unassimilating Europe, or (b) religious cults, led by charismatic males, that have withdrawn from American society. As I believe Megan McCardle has noticed in one of her defenses of polygamy, it does seem like polygamy currently exists only in cultures that radically repress women's freedoms.
Just to make it clear, there are multiple elements here that make marriage any sort of matter worth bothering about.
Among them are:
(Cohabitation and miscegenation [so-called: bah!] are, as has been mentioned, dead issues nowadays thanks to established precedents as well as accepted, relaxed mores.)
Feel free to add to the list.
Questions: Is "marriage" as currently constituted, practiced, and dissolved, the right thing to use for all of these? Or is a lot of this jazz just re-arranging the deck chairs on this culture's Hindenburg?
To Mark Vitruvius:
Your criticism is getting more helpful.
Your comment (from above):
"Tell me, clearly and precisely, how a marriage between two men robs any woman of any thing."
Please read "Italy Grapples With Polygamy" LA Times July 15, 2008. Link
The last sentence of the LA Times article reads:
"It's always the women," she said, "who pay the price."
I rest my case.
[ Link fixed. -- M.F. ]
Mr Shaw: I live in CA presently; I have lived in OH and MN previously, and let me assure you, the number of people I know or have encountered who consider themselves to be married in one or another "poly" sense has been nonzero in all of those locations, for more than three decades. I do not advocate, I merely report. Make of that what you will.
Please remember, even on hot-button subjects, even on Election Day:
Address the issues under discussion, rather than the putative qualities of the person responsible for that torrent of noxious electrons, upthread.
[/PSA]
Mr Lusvardi: Please don't post bare URLs. Guidelines for recommended formatting are presented above the comment entry fields.
Wayne says:
Then I'd expect you to be able to cite actual - y'know - research. Or make an argument better than this:
And getting rid of the legal sanction of marriage may make you the Queen of May as well - what in the world do you think you're doing making an argument like that here?
Look in your long piece you make a bunch of "well people may say" claims like:
1) 'credit as a right' leading to the credit collapse - note that ON THIS BLOG, I presented empirical evidence that that wasn't likely to be the case;
2) "If Prop 8 passes we may sadly see "straight flight" by parents, who were formerly tolerant of gays, pulling their kids out of public schools. Parents who were formerly laid back about teaching about gay rights in public schools may actually start teaching and preaching to their children the opposite at home. Needless to say, this would not further Progressivism."
And if we let women vote, no man will want to marry them. Or if we allow children to read Harry Potter, they may start practicing real witchcraft, which will be a setback to modern science.
Conjecture is not argument. It's not even the seed of argument.
3) "A social order that doesn't protect a woman from rape or in***t or concubinage can't give women freedom to control who the father(s) of their children are, or their own bodies, or even their own health (re: John Stuart Mill). Marriage is the structure of this freedom of choice for women in a modern society."
This is absurd on its face; womens' rights to control their lives are not protected by marriage; they are protected by the fact that we directly grant women rights.
I'll do one more, and see if I can get to the meat of your claims.
4) "It is more important to exclusively preserve the freedom of marriage for women at this time than to throw out the social tolerance contract with nothing to replace it but backlash and a social order built around an anti-American notion of social “pillarization” as found in the Dutch social model. Preserving marriage exclusively for procreation and women's freedom transcends the politics and religion of Left and Right and is the most Progressive option at this time until a consensus about marriage can be agreed upon."
I don't know what you mean by Progressive in this case, unless you mean to suggest that traditional evangelical religious roles are the only ones that truly liberate women. I don't see how you have begin to make arguments to support the paint-roller claims you make here.
Look, I'm going to go board my plane.
As kindly as I can, I will say that the reason I didn't respond to your email was that I didn't think the post you suggested was ready to be posted here.
It wasn't ready, and I'm sorry it was.
A.L.
Mark B.: You are assuming this is my first rodeo.
You've done nothing to disabuse me of that notion.
[inc*st is] not a problem, why would i suggest it should be?
What problem is polygamy? What problem is "beastiality?" [sic]
I was diffusing the argument you brought up.
By bringing up something that you claim doesn't exist? Real effective.
Councilor, now you're just being argumentative.
Another term you should look up. Each of us is being argumentative, i.e., arguing for our given positions. In a court case, arguments are reserved for the opening and closing. Questioning of witnesses is supposed to be for the presentation of fact.
Like i said, if you want to define marriage by procreation there are a lot of sterile, infertile, post-menopausal folks out there that would like to have a word with you.
Subfertile individuals no more break the link between marriage and procreation than the car on cinder blocks in your neighbor's yard breaks the link between cars and transportation. Same-sex couples are not subfertile any more than a pink lawn flamingo is a car.
Wayne, do you think I'm not following the rest of the argument? Italy doesn't allow gay marriage, so what difference does Italy's grappling with polygamy make?
Maybe you could cite any case where any American gay marriage as robbed any American woman of any thing?
If you want to try to deny state marriage licenses to couples who do not intend to reproduce or may be unable due to a biological problem, go ahead and try to get it on the ballot. I seem to remember something about privacy and reproductive rights, though. A person's sex is on their birth certificate. Their ability to desire to reproduce isn't such public record.
That not all both-sex couples reproduce does not negate that they are the only kind that can. The state's interest in marriage is primarily about reproduction, because children do not consent to be brought into the the relationship. Otherwise, the state does not have the same interest in regulating voluntary (consenting) personal associations - which is what relationships are.
I think California's strong domestic partnerships, since the participants have all of the trappings of marriage as far as the state is concerned, are the perfect accommodation for same-sex couples who raise children. It gives such households protections while still allowing a distinction between marriage and something other than marriage. Thus, an adoption agency could legally say "We give preference first to married households." Please note that no same-sex couples produce children on their own. All children being raised by same-sex couples are in that situation because their parents didn't stay together or third parties were deliberately used to create children to be raised without both a mother and a father or the same-sex couple was the best choice for custody of someone who would otherwise be a ward of the state.
Notice that there never was a sexual orientation test to obtain a marriage license - not before, not now, not if Prop 8 passes.
It is constitutionally legitimate to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Marriage (bride-groom) is a different kind of association from two men or two women. Anyone arguing that they don't have equal access to state-licensed marriage because they can't marry someone of the opposite sex proves this point - ironically.
Addendum to #42, still addressed to Mr Shaw:
...and none of those people I've known were anything weirder than "Bohemians" or Fussell's "Category X".
Not cultists, not unassimilated furriners. Maybe people who listened to Jafferson Airplane or read Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or Kingsbury's Courtship Rite too many times, but that's neither category you're talking about. Several were/are polyandrous. Wrap your head around that, why don't you? :)
[Minor edits]
Mark B.: If the best argument you can come up with is unintended consequences, i'd say you've given up. ANYTHING can have unintended consequences.
Consequences can be unintended but still be predictable. If you touch something hot you will get burned. You may not have intended it but you should have been able to predict it.
Make a prediction, what does the divorce rate rise to a year after gay marriage? 90%?
Why draw the finish line at one year? If you jump off a 50 story building I'm willing to bet you're doing OK after the first story. No-fault divorce took a couple of generations to wreak it's damage on marriage and sure enough, the result was a rise in both divorce and children born to unwed mothers. Gee, women got hurt by that one. I wonder who brought up the impact on women in all of this...
Now it's your turn. Make a prediction: what bad thing will happen a year after Prop 8 passes.
Op-Ed, you're a guest here. Act like one.
You have your own blog, and you're welcome to write whatever you choose there. But I'm directing you to look carefully at the tone of what you're posting and change it. Make any arguments you choose, but please do so with some measure of respect to those you're arguing with.
I'm sorry that my tone in my responses to Wayne is so stern; I was shocked to see this posted here in the state it's in. But we have a basic expectation of politeness and mutual respect here. Please honor it.
I'm inclined to close this thread at this point. We have important issues to discuss today, and I don't want to site dragged down by the conversation I see spinning out of this. Let me see what Joe wants to do.
A.L.
#47 Op-Ed: You write:
Two women can have all the babies they want.
Precedent (at least in CA, IIRC) is that the male member of a het married couple is the father de-jure regardless of who donated semen to the female member of the couple. This would clearly apply in a straighforward way to any non-issuing member (if any) in a two-women marriage where there was issue; and by extension, if both got pregnant, they'd each have counterpart-parentage de-jure to the other's (former) womb-tenant.
So then, oddly, biology contradicts equal protection, since two married guys can't do that.
Oh my. Whatever shall we make of that?