I hope my Facebook friends will keep the links coming, because it makes this really easy. Right now, I’ve got a few people discussing Theodore Olsen’s Newsweek article “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” Now I happen to have some opinions about this article, and the topic of gay marriage, and I see no reason not to voice them. But I do need to at least make clear my own social position with relation to the issue. I am a straight, single man (and while we’re at it, I end up in the “privileged” column on any other set of boxes that might be checked as well). I point this out because this debate, at least in the mainstream forums, is more or less characterized by straight people arguing with other straight people about gay people. And I’m about to be one more straight person opining about gay people, and I’m even going to say something that is open to the criticism of being heteronormative. Well, dems da breaks. Can’t really do shit about it, but the privileged position that some people (myself included) have in the conversation and the marginalized position of others at least ought to be acknowledged and lamented. But brevity has not ceased to be the soul of wit, so on to my thoughts on the matter.
I think this is a great article, and I hope you will read it (and be persuaded by it). Most of the debate on my facebook wall has been about whether the argument qualifies as “conservative.” I happen to think it does in important ways, but I think the more important point is that the argument ought to be of interest to conservatives. Perhaps a more fitting title (and a more important point) would be the current subtitle: “Why Same-Sex Marriage is an American Value.”
The article begins from what it calls the conservative premise that monogamous marriage is the normative basis for family, in such a way that the state has an interest in recognizing and promoting it. I happen to agree with this premise, which I guess makes me conservative (and this is where I am possibly open to the charge of heteronormativity). Granting this premise, the reader is asked what what about marriage makes it socially normative and worthy of the government’s recognition and promition, and whether that entails that it be a heterosexual union. The article’s contention (which I wholeheartedly agree with) is that none of the goods of marriage which the state has an interest in promoting require that the union be heterosexual. You can read the article yourself for the details. Most arguments to the contrary seem to involve an appeal to dogmatic authority, religious or otherwise. Such appeals are not admissible in American jurisprudence. Therefore, excluding homosexual couples from legal marriage is arbitrary and discriminatory, and may God and the Supreme Court grant that it is quickly done away with.
I would make two further points, that are not found in the article. First, I would argue that failure to extended the rights of marriage to gay couples will actually jeopardize the very thing it is ostensibly trying to protect, namely, marriage as a cultural norm. If gay and lesbian couples cannot be married, they will live together and raise children without being married, as rapidly increasing numbers of heterosexual couples do. We find ourselves in the rather ironic situation in which the so-called gay rights agenda is actually arguing for the normativity of marriage, while as I see it, the so-called pro-family agenda is seeking to undermine it. Make no mistake, marriage is in trouble in this country. The divorce rate is catastrophic (you see? I can be conservative every now and then), but perhaps more alarming is that for a variety of reasons (none of them having to do with homosexuality), straight couples are increasingly living together and having children with no thought of marriage. This is especially true of poorer, less educated, non-white couples. Marriage is becoming something of a privilege even among heterosexuals (take a look at this article for an interesting exploration of the causes). I think it largely has to do with a failure to appreciate the social, economic, and religious benefits of marriage (as this second article argues). At any rate, I think there is a danger of an increasing perception of marriage as irrelevant, and certainly not normative. Those who purport to be defenders of marriage ought to take all the help they can get, if its benefits are not to be lost.
Second, I am somewhat skeptical of the sharp line that some people want to draw between civil marriage and religious marriage. It is always an act of religious significance, which I’ll have to get into some other time. But I for one do not want the government being the arbiter of religious significance. If the argument against gay marriage is that the state has an interest in upholding “the sanctity of marriage,” which is allegedly undermined by gay marriage (which is wrong, but that’s for another day), then that is seriously screwed up. Since when is the government qualified to pronounce on such matters? I hardly trust these people to get the mail delivered, and the so-called conservative position is that I’m supposed to want them to start meddling determining what is holy? Next time I hear someone who thinks the government should protect the “sanctity” of marriage complain that public health care is invasive on the government’s part, I will not likely be able to retain my calm!
Wesley's Parochial Newsletter 