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.
[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.
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.)
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.
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.
(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.
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.
“…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?
[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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review