Possibly the strangest new argument against forcing the government to stop discriminating against gay people who want to get married is this: straight people are so terrible, they're so vile and self-centered and so irresponsible that marriage exists solely to regulate them and to socially engineer them so that men don't turn into deadbeat dads and opposite sex families understand the importance of caring for their kid - which they may not do otherwise. If you're offended, you should be. If you're mad, don't blame me, for it is not me making this ridiculous argument. It is the Prop. 8 proponents and the "sanctity of marriage" crowd.
This argument, before it made its way onto the teevee and into print, first appeared in court papers in the Prop. 8 trial.
Here's one itineration of this argument, from the proponents' initial request for a stay from Judge Walker:
Because only the relationship of a man and a woman can "produce offspring," such relationships uniquely implicate the vital societal interest in increasing the likelihood that children will be born to and raised by both their natural parents in stable, enduring family units.
There's a little hint of it in that argument, that governments somehow need to allow heterosexual marriage to create stable households. For what it's worth, I agree that governments should allow heterosexual marriages. That's fine with me. But, restricting marriages for same sex couples because you want to teach heterosexuals valuable lessons? Makes no sense. Right?
Now here's more from the proponents' argument to the Ninth Circuit in favor of a stay:
...the opposite-sex definition of marriage rationally serves society’s interest in regulating sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of those relationships benefits rather than harms society, by increasing the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable family units by the mothers
and fathers who brought them into this world.
And a bit more:
Indeed, an overriding purpose of marriage in every society is, and has always been, to approve and regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.
Yep that's right. Banning gays from marriage was never designed to hurt gay people. It only happens to make sure straight people don't "harm" society. Although the Yes on 8 campaign asserted that gays are twelve times more likely to molest children, they really are only doing this to hurt straights. Really. We promise.
How this is a "rational basis" or a "rationally related state interest" I'll never know. And then there's this:
Throughout history, other leading linguists, philosophers, historians, and social scientists have likewise consistently recognized the essential connection between marriage and responsible procreation and childrearing. See, e.g., NOAH
WEBSTER, AN AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1st ed. 1828)
(marriage "was instituted ... for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children"); BERTRAND RUSSELL, MARRIAGE AND MORALS 156 (1929) ("But for children, there would be no need for any institution connected with sex. . . . [for] it is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society"); QUALE, A HISTORY OF MARRIAGE SYSTEMS 2 ("Through marriage, children can be assured of being born to both a man and a
woman who will care for them as they mature."); JAMES Q.WILSON, THE MARRIAGE PROBLEM 41 (2003) ("Marriage is a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve."). In the words
of the eminent sociologist Kingsley Davis, "[t]he genius of the family system is that, through it, the society normally holds the biological parents responsible for each other and for their offspring. By identifying children with their parents ... the social system powerfully motivates individuals to settle into a sexual union and take care of the ensuing offspring." The Meaning & Significance of Marriage in
Contemporary Society 7-8, in CONTEMPORARY MARRIAGE: COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON A CHANGING INSTITUTION (Kingsley Davis, ed. 1985) (DIX50).
See? Gays need desperately to have our rights taken away because apparently straight people are terrible. This is not, I might add, an argument that was promoted at trial. This is new. They are trying to prove that they're not bigots - against gays. Only straights apparently. Did I mention I love this trial? I love this trial. Anything that makes them tie themselves in knots like this is awesome.
They spent years - DECADES - building up the institution of marriage as some sacred thing. Some huge status that people deserve to have. They loved marriage and spoke of its virtues endlessly. And we agree. And now, they're tearing it down. They talk about the deinstitutionalization of marriage and then proceed to trash it like it only exists to keep deadbeat dads from hurting kids.
marriage still furthers society’s interest in responsible procreation by decreasing the likelihood that the fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party
See? The only reason states need to marry heterosexuals is because people in committed couples are too immoral to NOT fuck around. This is all coming from the Yes on 8 side, the Christians and the Mormons. This is coming from the "marriage is sacred" crowd. Our side is doing a better job defending marriage on these points if you ask me.
And then, this argument slowly crept into the mainstream news. Ross Douthat wrote a column spouting this nonsense recently:
This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.
You gotta let straight people get married because if you don't there won't be any fidelity between straight couples and out of wedlock kids will be born. Again, I agree that straight people should be allowed to get married. Not seeing the point here aside from saying that protecting marriage means protecting heterosexuals from themselves and from other heterosexuals, and protecting kids from heterosexuals. But how's this related to gays at all?
And then, he says something weird:
But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve
This is a CELEBRATION of heterosexual couplings? Remind me never go to to a conservative party for fuck's sake. Celebration. I guess it's a celebration in the sense that "yay we didn't cheat today, nor did we abandon any children today!" That's not my idea of holding up a sacred union.
And then there's this:
In a follow-up post, he cites the celibate lesbian Catholic writer Eve Tushnet:
"If you have a unisex model of marriage, which is what gay marriage requires, you are no longer able to talk about marriage as regulating heterosexuality and therefore you’re not able to say: Look, there are things that are different about heterosexual and homosexual relationships. There are different dangers, there are different challenges, and, therefore, there are probably going to be different rules."
It’s the combination of an obvious point with a blatant non-sequitur that makes this argument so specious.
The obvious point is that straight relationships, gay male relationships, and lesbian relationships each have distinct challenges. (They also share many of the same challenges, a fact that Douthat mostly ignores.)
I just don't know. Marriage as "regulating heterosexuality." It seems like we should be able to "regulate" our own orientations (whatever the hell that means) doesn't it? They're using weasel words when they talk about "regulating" and "celebration(s)." They make it sound like holding up opposite marriages is a statement of true monogamous beauty in one breath and yet it's needed to control out of control sex perverts and deadbeat dads in the next breath. That's not a celebration. That's not "regulating heterosexuality" - it's using the government to control marriages and single heterosexuals out for marriage in order to keep them in line.
It's creepy, I get that. It disturbs me and all. The thing is though, it doesn't make any fucking sense. Whatsoever. This whole thing is so weird. It's not logical. How does preventing two same sex people from getting married even TIE IN to their whole culture domination and engineering theory of marriage? If marriage is just about regulating bad behavior, is the argument pretty much "why would you gays want access to that?" I mean is the purpose just to try and trick gays as if we're seven years old and we'll "see" that marriage is really not something we should try to get because all it's for is controlling the stupid?
Do people really think we're this dumb?