I’d like to add to my discussion directly below, my response to Andrew Sullivan’s question, “Why does allowing gay people to marry cheapen the institution?” This is a reasonable question, and it deserves an answer.
That’s a longer and more drawn out question. The real issue I aimed to address on my blog is whether, someone believing that it does do so, is violating his principles by seeking a constitutional amendment to stop that from happening, even if he ordinarily believes in federalism. I say no.
But, as for how it cheapens it, it undermines the strong social prejudice in favor of monogamous, lifelong marriage of two heterosexuals. Sexual morality more than any other field of morality is probably the most dependant upon taboo and social prejudice. The sexual revolution of the sixties has led to the current “anything goes” “consenting adults” skeletonized sexual morality. One might have asked then, “How do a bunch of hippies cavorting in Woodstock NY lead to gay marriage?” In this climate of unraveling social prejudices, other alternative structures can also enter through the gap: e.g., polygamous marriage, open marriages, etc., etc. When combined with mass immigration, these alternatives seem quite real. It is telling that our culture has strong taboos against these things for reasons just as “irrational” as our long established taboos against gay marriage.
I should add that I think the state and society should be in the marriage business because marriage is primarily about taming heterosexual men (who are biologically disposed to promiscuity) in order to create a financially and socially viable institution for rearing children. We honor men who enter it as “adult” and “responsible” to counter-balance the trade-off: no more attempts to screw irresponsibily everything that moves. It seems to me that [Andrew Sullivan] and other gay marriage advocates have taken one of the accoutrements of marriage–romantic love and partnership–and turned into the end all and be all, when in fact societies have long recognized, rewarded, and sanctioned marriage for the more prosaic reasons I list above. The fact that we allow old people and the infertile to marry is merely ancillary to this primary social end (and the ability to recognize these impediments has only come into place with modern science). If you redefine marriage and the state’s recognition of it as simply a means to giveaway health and other legal benefits than [Andrew Sullivan's] position makes sense. If you think these benefits exist primarily to make marriage a more pro-children-rearing institution, then [Sullivan's] position breaks down.
As for gays adopting and having kids, I think this practice is unfortunate for the children, though in some cases may represent the best alternative among several inferior options. I think children benefit from a male and female influence. Single families and gay couples suffer from the same problem in this regard. That all said, there is no reason to rearrange a 10,000 year old institution so that gay couples can “self-actualize” by getting married. I should rather stay with the tried and true than risk undermining established social consensus (which you [i.e., Andrew Sullivan] admit is a risk) and be forced into relying upon future majorities to save the Republic–majorities, that is, who may be even more degraded and confused by the turn of events. As the poet said:
“Vice is a monster so frightful to mein
that but to be seen is to despise
yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
-Alexander Pope
Moral Essays on Man
Subscribe To This Feed
