This year’s presidential campaign is a reminder that most members of the press, and almost everyone on the left, view social conservatives through the prism of two issues–abortion and gay marriage. (When possible, the burning national issue of whether states should be allowed to ban contraception is thrown in as well, as we saw during this weekend’s debates.) The narrative that’s been affixed is a simple one: those who oppose the right to an abortion and gay marriage are almost by definition unenlightened and/or bigoted. It doesn’t matter that most people who are traditionalists are none of these things. Nor does it matter that there are nuances and shades of gray in most people’s views on both issues (mine included). The subtleties get thrown aside in an effort to put people in neat little boxes. There are the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness.
This has important implications for our national life, including this one: more than ever before the champions of cultural conservatism need to be people who embody grace, who can articulate the moral good in a way that is non-censorious, and who can speak to these issues with honesty, fairness, and sympathy. They have to possess the ability to place social concerns in a larger frame. And importantly, they – indeed, all of us – need to resist the temptation to speak as if these issues are morally and socially uncomplicated. There is a good deal more ambiguity on these matters than either party platform allows for.
For example, for those of us who are pro-life, what ought to be the appropriate consequences for individuals who abort their pre-born children? Should there be any legal or moral distinction on the continuum of development (e.g., six hours v. six months after conception)? For those who favor abortion rights, why exactly should abortions be rare? Is there something problematic occurring? If so, what might that be? And on what basis do you believe a child in the eighth month deserves to be protected in law but not in, say, the second month?
For those who oppose gay marriage, what happens if, as gay marriage spreads in America, we learn that the institution of marriage incurs much less damage than was once commonly believed (or none at all)? What grounds, if any, would there be to continue opposing gay marriage? Is the concern about marriage — or is it about homosexuality? And for those who believe in gay marriage: what exactly are the moral and legal grounds on which you believe two men should marry but not three? Should we view marriage as an arbitrary contract that is de-linked from cultural, biological, and religious underpinnings?
It’s not as if these questions don’t have answers. But the answers are neither easy nor obvious. The problem with our public discourse is that it’s often suffused with certitude and judgment rather than grace and some measure of humility. This doesn’t mean one cannot, having wrestled with these issues, settle on a principled position. But that resting place is one that we all know, in our better moments, we ought to come to only after an honest and searching examination. There’s a special place of honor for public figures who engage rather than avoid the strongest arguments against their views.
I've come to the conclusion that "gay marriage" is an irrelevancy that's not really worth worrying about. Whatever the law may say, it will remain a boutique phenomenon with little impact on the existing institution of marriage. Gays are but a miniscule percentage of the total population, and those interested in getting married probably constitute a miniscule percentage of that miniscule percentage. How many gay men in their twenties and thirties are likely to be interested in tying the knot?
And as for the argument that redefining marriage once means that it can be redefined an infinite number of times, that’s true in principle but a dubious proposition in practice. Gay marriage is conceivable because attitudes toward homosexuality have evolved. Toward group marriage, polygamy, incest, etc., I doubt that society is prepared to adopt a tolerant attitude. It might be fun, though, see what proponents of gay marriage do when proponents of group marriage demand equal access to this “fundamentally conservative institution.” To deny them this would be to say that group relationships simply lack dignity that would merit “making it legal,” wouldn't it…?
Marriage is a fundamentally conservative institution because it promotes monogamy, at least that's what they tell me. Polygamy obviously doesn't, so I'm not sure how anyone could argue for polygamy in those terms. n nMost Americans, whether of conservative or progressive bent, would agree that polygamous unions do indeed lack dignity. Of course there will always be arch-relativists of the far-left or far-right who will argue in favor of legalizing polygamy. But unless a majority comes to share this view, it ain't gonna happen. n nAround 10% of the American population is gay or lesbian. A minority, but not exactly miniscule. (Jews are only 2% but nobody think we're irrelevant). I don't know how many gays want to get married, but some obviously do or we wouldn't be talking about it. How many straight men in their twenties and thirties are likely to want to tie the knot? I'm 29 and the thought of getting married sounds like a prison sentence. But sooner or later I'll probably change my mind, and if I were gay I'd want the same right.
What is it, precisely, about monogamy that makes it a conservative value? Nothing that I can see. Marriage was a conservative institution because it elevated responsibility over rights. But that, of course, is so ten minutes ago. The argument for gay marriage—"If I were gay I'd want the same right"—is the reverse of conservative. It arises from the same prejudice against responsibility that awards a trophy to every participant in kiddie soccer. And that attitude has already trivialized marriage as an institution. Sadly, what gays are winning for themselves is no longer much worth having.
I agree that the press makes all marriage traditionalists out to be idiots. n nBut let us not forget the log in conservatives' eye while they complain about the 2-3% of the population who would enjoin in a gay marriage; the divorce rate. n nWe are raising half of our children without fathers. If conservatives were serious about marriage, they would focus there. After all, divorce rates are as high for the right as they are for the left.
The problem I have with gay marriage is quite simple. First, what right does a society have to "license" *any* relationship between any two/three/thirty people? Think we don't have polygamy already in this society — spend some time in the student affairs profession and look at the people who are concurrently sleeping with multiple partners. What else would you call it *but* polygamy without a formal marriage license. So gays can be together if the state gives them permission but not if it doesn't? Is the evil government going to send in the SWAT team to kick down the bedroom door if they are living together without a license? n nOf course not. n nSo what is a marriage license a license for? n nA marriage license is a license to create children. Nothing more or less, it is a license to create children and that is something that society has (and always had) a legitimate interest in licensing. n nMarriage is about father's rights. Fathers of children — and it goes from everything from abortion to child support, marriage was what ensured that guys had rights too, which they don't now. n nAnd in a nutshell, that is what is wrong with gay marriage. n nAnd do we really want to give the government the authority to regulate what two (or more) consenting adults can do amongst themselves? The power to license is the power to deny a license — and thus to prohibit. n nThink about that for a while folks….
I agree wholeheartedy. I am awestruck with the thoughts of your website. I can only wish to apply the things you write in my every day life efficiently.