The defeat of the Federal Marriage Amendment has led to some awfully good writing.
Fred Clark from the Slacktivist, a left-wing Christian, approaches the question “Why do some Christians hate gays but love bacon?” It’s a beautiful thing.
I’m not a fan of Thomas Frank. His adaptation of his thesis, The Conquest of Cool, is surprisingly good, but his pieces for the Baffler remind me of present-day Christopher Hitchens: sneering, blindingly angry, and unpersuasive to the unconverted. However, he’s managed to pop out a tight editorial for the NY Times. He argues that the failure of the FMA was intentional, part of a continuing effort to reclaim victim status for conservatives.
Losing is prima facie evidence that the basic conservative claim is true: that the country is run by liberals; that the world is unfair; that the majority is persecuted by a sinister elite. And that therefore you, my red-state friend, had better get out there and vote as if your civilization depended on it.
John Scalzi points out that the effort to “defend marriage” would actually have the effect of breaking up thousands of existing marriages.
So it’s pretty simple: If you actually want to defend marriage, you have defend all the legal marriages, and that includes the ones with two men in them, and the ones with two women. Otherwise you’re explicitly saying that the government has the right to void any marriage of any couple, so long as two-thirds of the House, Senate and states go along. Who wants to be the first to sign up for that?
Finally, MoveOn is running a fundraiser specifically for opponents of vulnerable supporters of the FMA. I love this idea.
{ 20 comments }
alkali 07.16.04 at 5:40 pm
[Frank’s] pieces for the Baffler remind me of present-day Christopher Hitchens: sneering, blindingly angry, and unpersuasive to the unconverted.
Concur, but I would point out that if you do happen to be in the mood for that kind of thing, they’re great fun.
Chris 07.16.04 at 5:46 pm
I have to say, I find it both tiresome and frustrating that so many people on the pro-gay-marriage side seem to think that there is no conceivable reason to oppose gay marriage other than being an ignorant, bible-fundamentalist, bigot. I don’t doubt that a lot of anti-gay-marriage sentiment does stem from bigotry, from the sort of instinctual avulsion that a lot of frat-boy / red-blooded-American types feel toward the idea of two men having sex. But then again, probably 90% of the majority’s views on any subject comes from poorly thought out prejudice, whether those views ultimately happen to be right or wrong.
The fact is, there are reasonable philosophical/political premises that one could hold, which would lead one to oppose gay marriage. Now, it’s fine to disagree with those premises. I disagree with lots of things other people think. But to act as if they could only stem from blackhearted bigotry and immature prejudice, and as if they render the person who holds them unfit for civilized company — just strikes me as bizarre. If I’m a Kantian and my friend’s a utilitarian, we’re going to disagree about some things… but I don’t automatically consider him an uneducated bigot. What’s the difference?
(The above isn’t a very eloquent statement of what I’m trying to say, but I’m pressed for time, so there it is.)
Jeremy Osner 07.16.04 at 6:07 pm
Chris, the thing is, all of the philosophical/political premises I see laid out as arguments against the legalization of marriage between people of the same gender, sound strikingly like thin veneers over a base of unreasoning bigotry — in short like rationalizations.
Jeremy Osner 07.16.04 at 6:11 pm
That is to say — I don’t think Charles Murray is any less an ignorant bigot than is David Duke — his more polished presentation notwithstanding.
q 07.16.04 at 6:15 pm
(As a non-American) I am mystified by the whole debate. I don’t really understand why gays would want to get married, as opposed to a legal union, nor do I understand why anyone would want to outlaw it at a Federal level rather than a State level. I don’t “support” gay marriage, but should the residents of the state of Kansas want to marry gays, it seems inconceivable that the residents of New York should have any right to stop them.
Beth 07.16.04 at 6:38 pm
The fact is, there are reasonable philosophical/political premises that one could hold, which would lead one to oppose gay marriage.
That may be true, but I can’t imagine any reasonable philosophical/political premises which would necessitate an amendment to the federal constitution limiting state authority in order to prevent gay marriage.
q,
In the US, marriages confer some rights not available with civil unions.
Kevin 07.16.04 at 6:42 pm
“…If you actually want to defend marriage, you have defend all the legal marriages…Otherwise you’re explicitly saying that the government has the right to void any marriage of any couple, so long as two-thirds of the House, Senate and states go along…”
Doesn’t the government already have that right? The government declared many polygamous marriages to be invalid after-the-fact in the 19th century… All the government would have to say in regards to existing gay marriages is that they were never valid to begin with (and certainly many of the recent ‘marriages’ in California which were performed in spite of contradictory local laws would qualify in this aspect…)
By the way…what IS the rationale for saying consenting gays should be allowed to marry but three or more consenting partners of any gender should NOT be allowed to form a legal union?
alkali 07.16.04 at 7:10 pm
[W]hat IS the rationale for saying consenting gays should be allowed to marry but three or more consenting partners of any gender should NOT be allowed to form a legal union?
Here are two:
(1) Marriage grants a spouse some rights and imposes on a spouse some obligations that are not divisible among multiple parties. Suppose in a hypothetical marriage of three persons, A falls ill: who makes health care decisions, B or C? I suppose it might be possible to adapt marriage to multiple arrangements, but it would require a complex new set of legal rules. If you want to propose some, I’ll listen.
(2) There are significant numbers of gays and lesbians all across the country who would if they could get married. There are a vanishingly small number of multiple groups who want that. By sheer numbers, the question of gay marriage is far more urgent. When a million (or even ten thousand) polyamorists and their friends and families march on Washington, I’ll listen to what they have to say; until then, it’s not going to keep me up nights.
Alex R 07.16.04 at 7:25 pm
Kevin —
The rights of marriage as defined under law are entirely built around the marriage of *two* individuals, and only very rarely is the fact that those individuals are of the opposite gender relevant.
To give some examples: In a polygamous marriage of 5 people, should all four partners of a member of the marriage have the right to be insured on that member’s health insurance plan? What should the IRS deductions and limits and bracket boundaries be for 5 people filing jointly? What about divorce and custody laws — what if one member wants out — what rights does he or she have? No, polygamy just does not fit in the modern legal structure of marriage.
But there are almost *no* ways in which the legal structure of the marriage of an opposite-gender couple doesn’t translate directly to the marriage of a same-gender couple. A few things may be irrelevant (paternity issues, perhaps) but the structure is essentially the same.
A better comparison than polygamy might be consanguinuity laws, which disallow marriages between people who are too closely related — brothers and sisters, for example. These laws are, as far as I know, entirely at the state level, and the federal goverment has seen no need to get involved. There is also separate question: why should consenting gays be allowed to marry, but not consenting siblings? Personally, I wouldn’t have a huge problem with allowing sibling marriage, but I would also argue that the fact that there is no evidence for a *generic* preference for siblings means that there is no group that loses its right to fulfilling marriages by virtue of consanguinuity laws — unlike the case of laws forbidding same-gender marriages.
peter ramus 07.16.04 at 7:36 pm
The Thomas Frank op-ed seems to be a shorter riff on a theme explored in his latest book, What’s The Matter With Kansas?.
I’ve linked to the amazon website because it contains a sentence in a negative review of the book, written by reader “33363” which seems to perfectly encapsulate what Franks is driving at:
I will continue to campaign and vote against Democrats (and liberal Republicans), until hell freezes over if that what it takes, until this nation’s moral integrity is restored.
I suspect that all the tropes of lingering outrage, e.g. abortion, flag-burning, public Christmas decorations, homosexuality, “under God,” feed reader 33363’s conviction that moral integrity can be had at the ballot box.
So what if Republicans leaveNo Child Left Behind underfunded by tens of billions of dollars, decisively transfer the burden of income tax from the very richest onto the shoulders of the middle class, or engage in enormously inept military adventurism?
They’ve got the vote of reader 33363 sewn up. Granted, reader 33363 may be a rich childless militarist, in which case this may be a case of voting for one’s own self-interest, but otherwise, not so much.
In Mr. Frank’s view, Republicans consciously energize the allegiance of such folks with political initiatives couched in moral terms that consistently and predictably fail because of, say, the Constitution, for example, or previous Supreme Court decisions. The FMA “defeat” is a perfect case study of Franks’ thesis, one that will undoubtedly keep reader 33363 fuming and faithfully voting Republican for years to come.
Steve 07.16.04 at 8:16 pm
Alex and Alkali-
I think you are missing out on the point of Kevin’s challenge-that the argument FOR gay marriage is that it is arbitrary (and thus indefensible) to limit marriage to people of two genders. If this is accepted, then it is equally arbitrary to limit marriage to two people! If you accept that polygamy can be outlawed because it “just doesn’t fit the modern legal structure of marriage”, then you have to accept(but not necessarily agree with) the argument that gay marriage “just doesn’t fit the modern legal structure of marriage.” He’s really exposing the core of the issue: some people want to arbitrarily define marriage as two people of opposite genders, some people want to arbitrarily define marriage as two people of any gender. Both are arbitrary.
The threat this poses, of course, is that the whole argument FOR gay marriage is that anti-gay marriage folks are imposing arbitrary (and thus unjustified) rules on gays. Without the ‘lack of arbitrariness’ argument on the pro-gay side, its just one arbitrary rule against another, which in democracies, at least in theory should go to the majority.
Steve
Beth 07.16.04 at 9:25 pm
its just one arbitrary rule against another, which in democracies, at least in theory should go to the majority.
This a terrible mischaracterization of our government and our society. If it were true, the US would be nothing but a tyranny of the majority. It is not. American democracy is founded on the twin pillars of majority rule and individual rights. These rights extend to all Americans. No group can be denied them simply on the whim of the majority. When we deny rights to certain groups — such as denying children the right to vote or habitual drunk drivers the right to drive — we must have sound, rational reasons for doing so. Such decisions should never be made arbitrarily.
Alex R 07.16.04 at 9:41 pm
Steve —
The whole argument for gay marriage is not that the rules against it are “arbitrary”. The argument for gay marriage is simply that people who are gay should have the same rights to the *existing legal institution of marriage* as those who are straight, and that the rules against gay marriage infringe that right.
The point that alkali and I are making — through the examples we gave — is that poly-marriage would be an entirely different legal institution from couple-marriage. Whether you think that it should be allowed or not, the laws, rights, and rules for poly-marriage would require dramatic reworking.
Same-sex couple marriage, on the other hand, is or would be legally identical to the existing legal institution of opposite-sex couple marriage — no additional reworking or new social or legal structures are required. Since straights have the right to enter the legal structure of couple-marriage with their partners, gays should also have this right — as a basic principle of liberal society.
Steve Cumberbatch 07.16.04 at 10:33 pm
Alex:
Even if polygamous marriage would require more fundamental changes in the legal structure of marriage than would same-sex marriage – which is not all obvious – it is not clear why that should be the determining criterion of which marriages are allowed and which are not. After all, incestuous unions require even fewer legal changes than either same-sex or polygamous marriages, yet most people would consider them to be less acceptable than either of these.
Restrictions on same sex, polygamous and incestuous marriages are all different in kind, and logically one can support some of these but not others. The real issue, however, is that advocates of same-sex marriage often make extremely individualistic and libertarian claims in defence of their position, e.g. by claiming that individuals (presumably consenting adults) have a right to marry any partner of their choice, and that any restrictions on this right constitute “discrimination.” They make this assumption for the simple reason that they want judges to bypasss the electorate and the legislative process by declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental right. If the moral argument begins with that assumption, however, it is extremely difficult to justify restrictions on polygamy or perhaps even incestuous marriages. Defenders of same-sex marriage can do so only by making some tendentious assumptions that could easily be countered by a determined advocate of these other types of marriage.
There is a fundamental inconsistency at the heart of the current version of the case for same-sex marriage – very individualistic premises are used to defend it by people who suddenly start to think about social consequences when other restrictions on marital choices are questioned.
Steve132
aurora 07.16.04 at 11:50 pm
I think Frank is right on the money, and I’m very grateful to him for clearing up one of the most brain-scrambling conundrums in ‘Murkin political behavior these days: why do so many Joe/Jane Sixpack-type folks vote against their own real interests (economic and otherwise), for obvious hypocrites who mouth phony “support” for down-home, family-oriented, old-time religious values while actually supporting special favors, tax breaks and benefits for the very, very wealthy?
Victimology is a cheap, dishonest and surprisingly powerful weapon in a society where MOST people — meaning, of course, the vast majority of us not-rich, not-privileged, ordinary folks — secretly fear that they’re worthless or inadequate (because if we were really any good, we’d be rich by now). Huge numbers of middle- and working-class white men suffer from that fear, and those secret feelings of inadequacy.
There are two ways to combat such fears and feelings: one would be to point out the falseness of the underlying assumption (“This is America! If you were any good, you’d be rich by now!”) and show how fellowship and solidarity, plus a demand that the very rich finally pay their fair share, could lead to a better quality of life for all. The other is: BLAME SOME “OTHER” GUY! The Other who gets blamed is, in this and many other cases, the “Liberal Elite” and their friends, the “Family-Wrecking Homosexuals” (although lots of other popular choices include “Affirmative-Action Minorities,” “Uppity Ballbusting Feminazis” and “Commie Gangster Unions”).
Republicans have been going for the “Blame the Other Guy” strategy for some time now, and it’s been winning consistently.
It makes me sick.
Beth 07.17.04 at 12:40 am
Even if polygamous marriage would require more fundamental changes in the legal structure of marriage than would same-sex marriage – which is not all obvious
Check Alex and Alkali’s posts above. They make it glaringly obvious.
incestuous unions require even fewer legal changes than either same-sex or polygamous marriages
That’s not all obvious to me. Perhaps you would follow Alex and Alkali’s lead and provide specific examples of the changes same-sex marriage would necessitate.
advocates of same-sex marriage often make extremely individualistic and libertarian claims … that individuals (presumably consenting adults) have a right to marry any partner of their choice
I’ve never heard that particular argument from gay marriage advocates, only from their opponents (e.g. If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow beastial marriage as well). Advocates argue simply that homosexuals should have the same right to marry as anyone else.
they want judges to bypasss the electorate and the legislative process by declaring same-sex marriage a fundamental right.
Wrong again. They are challenging state laws based on the state constution, not some ‘fundamental right.’ If the state’s voters and legislators want to amend the constitution to override the judges’ rulings, they are free to do so. It is opponents of gay marriage who are trying to bypasss the state electorate and legislative process by introducing an amendment to the federal constitution which denies states the right to make such decisions for themselves.
John 07.17.04 at 5:43 am
Question: If we’re going to allow people of the same sex to marry, shouldn’t we then allow related people to marry, such as Father/daughter, Mother/son, etc?
Well, one of the biggest reasons to get married is to become related in the eyes of the law. A father/daughter are ALREADY related, they don’t need to accomplish this by marrying.
q 07.17.04 at 6:31 am
Info please. Is there a good WWW summary of the social or legal differences between two people getting married and two people having a civil or legal union in the USA?
Matt Weiner 07.17.04 at 11:32 pm
q, I believe that the only place in the U.S. where two people of the same sex can have a civil union is Vermont, and that only in the last few years. Here’s a CNN article discussing it.
novalis 07.19.04 at 11:42 pm
q: HRC discusses the federal legal differences.
I think the reason most people who support SSM don’t support polygamy is that polygamists don’t have a highly active political wing. GLB people have decided, over time, that we (I include myself, as a bisexual) are tired of being stepped on. At Stonewall, we taught the world that we can stand up for ourselves. And we’ve built a political movement which can get SSM onto ballots and into courthouses. We’ve put jobs and lives on the line to come out of the closet so that few people can say what Justice Powell (the deciding vote in Bowers v. Hardwick) said: “I don’t believe I’ve ever met a homosexual.”
The biggest predictor of support for SSM is knowing a gay person. If polyamorous people would come out of the closet, they would see more support, over time.
Comments on this entry are closed.