2004_03_01_archive

Some thoughts on gay marriage

In recent months, I have come to change my opinions slightly regarding

the gay marriage issue (read my post from a while back on the issue

here). First, I have become more sympathetic to the side opposing the

licensing of unions of two people of the same-sex. And second, I have

come to the recognition that as much as the institution of marriage

has suffered in the last 40-some years, gay-marriage will not cause it

to decline even further. Rather, gay marriage, is the next logical

step in the disintegration of heterosexual marriage.

I believe that the anti-gay marriage crowd is correct in saying that

the political/social institution of marriage (I want to separate it

from the religious institution... though historically, the two were

not so separate and the religious institution also reflected the same

values about marriage as did the political/social) is to a great

extent about begetting and raising children. We recognize this in the

laws that we have. Why do we not allow cousins to get married? Because

if they have kids, it would likely be disastrous for those children's'

health due to the harms of mixing genes from the same gene-pool. In

this case, we recognize that two people who get married would

naturally want to have kids. Otherwise, we could allow cousins to get

married but bar them from having kids. Why also do we not allow four

people or six people to get married? For precisely the same reason.

Since physically, only two people of different genders can beget

children, we recognize that the primary responsibility for raising

those children must lie with those two people, not four who happen to

have an agreement of "love and commitment."

So, in light of this, Sen. Rick Santorum's (R-PA) statement, last year

(that we would have to legalize incest, polygamy, etc), does not seem

all that outrageous. Even to an atheist such as myself. What does all

of this have to do with gay marriage one might ask (as one socialist

did on a cold evening near Washington Square Park... he was sorry he

got in my path to sign his harebrained petition)? Well, the thing is,

that based on my cursory reading of biology textbooks, I have

concluded that only two people of different genders can, together,

beget children. So if we recognize, as we had to above, that marriage

as a social/political institution is primarily (or at least, largely)

a reflection of the partnership's unique and primary responsibility of

begetting and raising children, then since homosexuals cannot beget

children within their partnership, they are missing a significant

component of marriage. So, in that sense, their unions are less than

the marriage between heterosexuals in the traditional sense.

But this does not mean that I oppose, today, granting licenses to gay

couples to get married. The reason for this, is that, like the author

of this article (thanks to Instapundit for the pointer), I believe

that we no longer have a society in which most heterosexuals

understand marriage and sexual relations in the traditional sense. It

seems that for most people, the choice of having children or not

having children has become a lifestyle choice completely detached from

marriage, rather than a natural consequence and reflection of the

union. This is largely due to the advent of reliable birth-control,

which allows people to make that choice. For most heterosexuals,

sharing in common domestic affairs (such as living together), is also

separate from marriage. Most people now live with the person they

marry before actually getting married.

Some of these trends, I think are negative, and others just neutral.

But all of them do point to changing attitudes towards the institution

of marriage. I don't think that these are things that we can change.

For example, I do believe, that birth control is an important

innovation of modern society. Even traditional Catholics who pay

lip-service to opposing contraception still have their own version of

it in natural family planning (sure, there is an argument to be had

whether NFP does contradict Catholic doctrine or not, but at least,

they do realize the benefits of not having 15 kids, 10 of whom die at

childbirth). Similarly, I think that much of the weakening of

attitudes about marriage were a cost to the improvement of the lot of

women over the years. Bearing children became a lifestyle choice

because women started working on a large scale -- and not just as

teachers or librarians. Hence, contraception, became vital in being

able to plan and control when to have children. Since women bore the

greatest burden in childrearing, having children made careers

prohibitive for women. I do not believe that we can turn back the

clock on our views of marriage without severely hurting women's right,

nor should we. I also do not think that this is politically feasible.

I think that this is a permanent change in the way our society views

marriage. Again, I am not saying that these views are all bad or all

good. I think that some of them are harmful and others are neutral or

actually beneficial.

As such, I do not think we are justified in keeping gays from enjoying

the same marriage light option that we allow countless heterosexual

couples. We do not go into a household and un-marry a couple if it is

a childless marriage for non-medical reasons. As such, the government,

has no legitimate state interest in discriminating between the two for

what amounts to no essential difference between heterosexuals who do

not accept the traditional understanding of marriage and homosexuals.

Finally, we can not leave these questions up to the states as some

have suggested. Because of the full faith and credit clause of the

U.S. Constitution (Art. 4, Sec. 1), which reads:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public

Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And

the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such

Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect

thereof."

if one state grants a marriage license, every other state has to

accept that license's validity. So, if a gay couple in San Francisco

gets married, the city of Lawrence, KS must grant them full rights and

privileges of marriage whether or not the state of Kansas grants the

right to marry to homosexuals. Hence, the recognition of same-sex

marriage in one state, would seem to require the recognition of that

marriage in every state.

UPDATE: Ok, I just did some research and found that the Supreme Court

has held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not completely set

in stone, for there is something called the "public policy exception"

which says that if one state's legal decree contradicts another

state's public policy in a significant way, that state does not have

to recognize the original state's decree as legally binding. For a

good discussion of this, go here. In that case, I would favor leaving

the gay-marriage issue up to the states.

Mobius Strip | 4:48 PM | 0 comments|

Back in the saddle again

After a long hiatus of blogging, the YFP blog is back at it. Stay

tuned...

Mobius Strip | 4:44 PM | 0 comments|

HOME

YFP People

Cacciaguida

Chickpea Eater

David Ross, Jason Apuzzo

David Wagner

Elinor Dashwood

Eve Tushnet

Gene Vilensky

Julian Ku et. al.

Kira Argounova

Old Oligarch

Otto-da-Fe

The Rat

Zorak

Blogosphere

Alarming News

Alex Singleton

Alina Stefanescu

Andrea Grimes

Andrew Sullivan

Asparagirl

Blogs for Bush

Brian Cook

Crescat Sententia

Diotima

Greg Djerejian

Iain Murray

INDC Journal

Instapundit

John Coleman

Julian Sanchez

Ken Wheaton

Koch Fellows 2004

Matthew Yglesias

OxBlog

Samizdata

Tom Palmer

Tyler Cowen

Virginia Postrel

Volokh Conspiracy

News

NR's The Corner

Reason's Hit and Run

WSJ's Best of the Web

Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit

their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and

cannot even digest themselves.

--Friedrich Nietzsche, Zarathustra I.11