I read several articles to identify the arguments in support of a constitutional amendment banning gay-marriage, with the purpose of highlighting and assessing the validity of the more "substantive" arguments. I've ignored biblical literalists, those fixated on the mechanics of sexual activity, bigots, demagogues and opportunists. Rather, I have sought to consider this issue from the perspective of principled or pious conservatives, who have yet to realize that their own moral opposition does not necessitate a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of the articles I reviewed, two arguments worthy of note are the
"slippery-slope to polygamy" argument, and the
"circular reasoning marriage equals procreation equals marriage" argument.
The critical thinking process requires awareness that "slippery slopes" and "circular reasoning" are logical fallacies that undermine the decision-making process. But I did not select these phrases to describe the arguments; their proponents did so themselves. That they use these phrases to describe their own arguments should say something about the validity of their conclusions.
The Slippery Slope to Polygamy
Stanley Kurtz lays out one of the most widely touted cases for opposition to same-sex marriage in the article, "Beyond Gay Marriage," which appeared in the August 4--11, 2003 edition of the Weekly Standard. Fundamentally, Kurtz argues that legalizing same-sex marriage would inevitably legitimize polygamy and partnerships unrelated to sexual or romantic love. Highlights of his argument are summarized as follows:
* Questions regarding the impact of gay-marriage on family and children remain unanswered. Therefore, gay-marriage should not be legalized, just in case legalization leads to the collapse of society. He assumes it will.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to legitimization of polygamy. Even now, polygamy advocates are poised to take advantage of the change in precedent. Even though major liberal institutions such as the ACLU have yet to advocate for polygamy, they will. That's what they do.
* Gay-marriage advocates actually see this debate as an opportunity to de-legitimize the institution of marriage itself.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to unions associated with securing benefits and governmental protections, not on unions based on romantic or sexual commitment.
* Legalizing same-sex marriage will degrade the role of monogamy, because currently "committed" gay partners will often engage in sexual conduct outside of the relationship.
* Because same-sex marriage will lead to a breakdown of monogamy and companionate relationships, the subsequent instability will have a negative impact on children and society as a whole.
On its face, Kurtz's claim that questions remain is highly suspect. However, let's accept his premise, given "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics." If questions remain, then what business do we have enacting a constitutional amendment banning gay-marriage? Such an amendment is an anti-democratic cure in search of a disease.
The proposed constitutional amendment's conflict with federalism is not just an assault on the traditional role played by the states as they enact their own family law policies, it actually thwarts the benefit of allowing states to experiment with public policies - to determine whether they work. States, such as Massachusetts, are doing that right now. What have the results been thus far? Yes indeed, the question remains open. "In God We Trust--all others bring data." What we are seeing is a presumption of saving states from themselves, from their own legislatures, from their own courts, and from their own people.
Massachusetts might not be a fair state for comparison. After all, that state already earned the lowest divorce rate in the nation before they legalized same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, what are the metrics upon which we can rely to determine the actual impact that gay-marriage will have on the institution of marriage, the raising of children, or the fabric of society as a whole? Who would collect, analyze and interpret the data? Who would make policy decisions based on the conclusions? Our government? Our churches? Our society at large? Should such questions be addressed in the heat of an election cycle? Are other policy questions of greater importance? Indeed: many, many questions...
The liberalization of divorce law, with the subsequent socio-cultural evolution beyond predominantly nuclear families that followed, has led to decades of available data relative to the actual impacts on child development and society. At present, 50% of marriages are likely to end in divorce, with the concurrent questions regarding implications and consequences for children and society. Yet, our society seems to fend just fine by itself, without having to short-circuit cultural evolution through constitutional amendment. What possible impact (either negative or positive) would same-sex marriage have on divorce rates? What effect does economic insecurity, mental illness, or years of deployment overseas have on divorce rates? More questions thirsty for analysis, yet not for constitutional amendment.
As an aside, when it comes to same-sex marriage, the "questions" about the harm to society lead opponents to demand a "permanent" solution, inserted directly into the Constitution, based on a worst-case hypothetical scenario. However, when it comes to issues such as global warming, these same people seem immune to similar convictions. In both cases, the worst-case scenario is social collapse. Why is social collapse in one instance, based on weakly substantiated presumptions and fears, so vital an issue, while the far more disturbing worst-case scenario of global warming, conclusively substantiated by mountains of scientific evidence, receives nary a word?
Kurtz acknowledges that the issue is not about homosexuality per se; it is about the need to maintain marriage as a monogamous, commitment-based institution. The bottom of the slope, in Kurtz's view, appears to be polygamy (Clowns like Santorum and Bennett create steeper slopes ending in the naughty valley of bestiality and pedophilia). Assuming Kurtz is right for one moment, if polygamy is the real threat, would not the appropriate course of action be a constitutional ban on polygamy itself?
However, it is plain as day that gays are the real target, not polygamists. While some still cling to the idea that homosexuality is a choice, no one credibly asserts that polygamy is anything but a choice. Whether as a matter of psychology or biology, homosexuality is part of the human equation. Polygamy is a social construct only viable when a society requires such a cultural construct to survive; it has neither biological nor psychological precursors. Homosexuality is to polygamy what apples are to oranges.
Perhaps one should not be surprised that so many people succumb to the slippery slope logical fallacy. Many of those opposed to gay marriage are of similar temperament or disposition to those who were opposed to interracial marriage a number of decades ago, justifying their positions similarly, "If we allow mixed race couples to marry, who'll be next...the gays?"-- the same people who just knew that if women were granted equal rights, then minorities would demand them too - the same people that knew that shifting from the view of woman-as-property would lead to increases in divorce and the subsequent reapportionment of wealth. In this context, what they call a slippery slope, we call social progress.
On their faces, the arguments are based on strawmen. For millennia, gays have been denied the same rights, social acceptance of, and supportive institutions for their committed relationships. As such, they have been forced "underground," cast to the fringes of society, where their choices about sexual conduct and commitment can then be held up to scorn and ridicule by the majority. Denied the support of traditional, social institutions to bring structure and symbolism into their relationships (structure and meaning that heterosexuals take for granted), some homosexuals have engaged in behavior that has led to unfortunate stereotypes. The very nature of marriage as a stabilizing social institution provides an end to the slippery-slope leading to promiscuity and "questionable" sexual conduct, providing, in the words of Andrew Sullivan, an "institution that can act as a harbor in the emotional storms of our lives."
Kurtz claims that, because homosexual men tend to be promiscuous, legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to a normalization of promiscuity and adultery. Accepting for one moment Kurtz's argument, what about lesbian couples? Research suggests that lesbian couples hold monogamy in incredibly high regard. Should they be excluded from the equation? How highly valued monogamy is to a particular person has less to do with his or her sexual orientation than on sex-based biological "impulses." Studies suggest that men tend to value their own monogamous commitments differently than women, whether they are in a committed relationship with a woman or another man. This is not to suggest that adultery is justified (as our society clearly looks with disfavor upon adultery in general), merely to suggest that there is a biological or evolutionary rationale based on the sex of the person rather than his or her sexual orientation. As Pinker asserts, just because something is natural (such as the biological impulse toward rape evident in several species) does not make it good. Social institutions such as marriage provide a structure within which what is "good" is supported rather than what is purely "natural."
As described above, homosexual male conduct is greatly influenced by society's treatment of the gay population. There is no reason to conclude that, all other factors being equal, two men entering into a commitment-based relationship are any more likely to engage in extra-marital conduct, than there is reason to conclude that men in heterosexual marriages will engage in similar conduct (other than stereotypes of course). Gay partners profess as deep a commitment to the values and expectations of monogamy as their heterosexual counterparts. Equally true, partners, regardless of sexual orientation, break their commitments for many reasons. Formalizing the commitments of same-sex couples does nothing to change the monogamous norms of society at large.
Regarding the argument that legalizing gay-marriage would lead to people entering into marriages based on reasons other than romantic intimacy and commitment, this is already the case, and has more to do with economic and social realities than any hypothetical consequences associated with same-sex marriage. There certainly are couples today whose marriages are based on decisions having nothing to do with love. In many cultures, arranged marriages are commonplace. In our culture, while marriage is not the norm, marriage does tend to involve alignment with socio-economic class. Some couples fall out of love, but maintain committed relationships to provide stability for their children. Some couples come together because of previous divorces that make it difficult to make ends meet living independently. Some people get married due to unplanned pregnancy, based on the belief that the child would receive a more stable upbringing as a result. In fact, many homosexuals have entered into traditional marriage arrangements (with spouses both aware and unaware of their mates' sexual orientation) specifically because social acceptance was of profound importance to them.
In all such cases, the decision to enter into a marriage is based on the impulse to promote one's economic, social, and psychological security, the very same features that same-sex opponents claim would be undermined. Along with the "benefits" of marriage come socially proscribed responsibilities. These responsibilities also enforce social stability, whether the relationship is based on romantic love, economic necessity, or child-rearing obligations. Along with the benefits come the responsibilities, regardless of the reasons for marrying.
Banal/Circular Procreation Argument
Sam Schulman lays out a less protracted, if not more garbled case against same-sex marriage in, "Gay Marriage Would Harm Society," which appeared in the anthology At Issue: Gay Marriage from Greenhaven Press (2005). Fundamentally, Schulman argues that because marriage has always been based on the union of a man and a woman, marriage is defined in an unwritten fashion as such. Therefore, the definition of marriage should not be defined as anything other than the union between a man and a woman.
Schulman astutely points out that only through the union of a man and a woman can new life be created. He claims that, without marriage, society might tend toward polygamy, which can also lead to the creation of new life. Using Kurtz's work above as support, Schulman asserts that nothing less than `the toppling of society" is at stake. He acknowledges that defending "unwritten law" is difficult, but contends that in the context of same-sex marriage, the very fact that the definition is unwritten leads one to conclude that only what has been done previously is acceptable today.
"The laws of marriage do not create marriage. But in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage...without the shared, public aspect, perpetuated generation after generation, marriage becomes what its critics say it is: a mere contract, a vessel with no particular content, one of a menu of sexual lifestyles, of no fundamental importance to anyone outside a given relationship."
Schulman goes on to directly contradict Kurtz in one respect. According to Schulman, the survival of the institution of marriage does not rest at all on the concept of romantic love. Marriage is defined by Schulman as "the solemnification of the procreative process in which opposites come together."
In Schulman's world, it would seem that any solemnification of the union between two people that has nothing to do with potential procreation is a threat to the institution of marriage itself. Interestingly, Schulman does not speak to the numbers of married couples that do not or cannot have children, the consequences of step families, the role of single-parent households, the implications of artificial insemination, and the like. To Schulman, it would appear that the mere opportunity to procreate based upon the availability of different body parts is the crux of marriage: not the existence of children, companionate or romantic love, or monogamous commitment.
Further, Schulman relies on the lowest common denominator of marriage available to us today to "define" marriage in timeless terms. For hundreds of years, marriage was defined as transfer of ownership of a woman-as-property to the husband. Social progress led to recreation of the "definition," regardless of how long the previous rules applied. The same can be said of inter-racial marriage. The same can be said for the need to procreate. Why then, is the "union of opposites" sacrosanct, and what about expansion to a "union of two individuals" is so dangerous?
As an aside, I find it charming that anyone on the right would appeal to the "rule of law" at this point in our history.
At this point, a constitutional amendment that would lead to a permanent ban of same-sex marriage is unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless, the issue is one that will be discussed regardless of the likely political outcome. As such, it seems important to be prepared to address the arguments proposed by the "thoughtful" members of the conservative worldview. Ridiculing their perspective will not persuade them of anything, despite how strong the impulse may be to assault their position. Hopefully, the above will supplement your body of knowledge. That being said, what are the other primary arguments are out there that you are aware of?
Thanks for reading. SK