Monday, August 9, 2010

Do we really want to redefine marriage?

States across the country are in the midst of debating the idea of changing the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Five states have legalized the practice through legislative or judicial action, but despite thirty-one attempts, not a single time has a majority of citizens of a state approved such a change. Not that this is an argument for majority rule. It’s not. Every state has a republican form of government and should be governed by the rule of law rather than man. Nonetheless, at some point government is accountable to the people and constitutional change is often how citizens make their feelings felt. Thirty states, including California, have amended their constitutions to explicitly state that marriage is to be considered between one man and one woman. This week a federal judge in San Francisco threw much of that into the air. Ted Olson argued that the court is merely protecting the right to marriage, a right the court has addressed 14 times since 1888. I have to disagree with Mr. Olson and Judge Walker. This is not just like Loving v. Virginia, which did away with barriers to interracial marriage. Race is not sex. This is not opening up marriage to just another group who had been arbitrarily excluded. Men and woman are fundamentally different and marriage has always been understood to be a union between a man and a woman, not just two people.

If we step away from thousands of years of western tradition, if we take that first step in changing the definition from one man and one woman, where does that road lead? Where do we stop? It’s the slippery slope problem. Sure, today we are arguing about two people of the same sex, but why could we not just as easily argue for one man and two women or three men or three women? Could we not use the same rationale to allow a salesman who lives in Miami but works in Charlotte to have a wife and children in Florida and another family in North Carolina? And what if his Charlotte wife wanted to have a second husband from across town for the weekends when her salesman husband is down in Florida? Who says a person can’t be committed to two different people simultaneously? In 1887 Utah was forced to outlaw polygamy as the price of admission into the United States because it was understood that marriage was between one man and one woman. Will the state now have the opportunity to amend its constitution to bring back the practice? Once we change the definition the permutations could be endless. What about children? It was not so long ago that the marriage of children for political or dowry reasons was not uncommon. Do we want to go back there and allow 12 & 13 year old children to be married and traded for family favors or for “love”? Is not the age of consent arbitrary?

One might argue that much of the history of marriage had to do with the biological necessity of a heterosexual union for procreation purposes. Because science has now made an actual heterosexual union unnecessary for procreation is that sufficient grounds to abandon the principal in the first place? Scientists have been telling us for years that at some point computers will be smarter than humans. Today there is even a report about a robot that expresses and detects emotions. Make that into an anatomically correct robot and we could have relationships without human partners, male or female. Should those unions then be granted marriage status as well?

For 2,500 years western civilization has been anchored around the notion that marriage was understood to be between one man and one woman. While the form of government may have varied from democracy to republic to empire to monarchy to constitutional democracy to our own constitutional republic, marriage between one man and one woman has always been understood to be at the core of that society. The legitimacy of the government itself was sometimes explicitly based upon blood and marriage, and in all cases the institution of marriage and family was understood to be at the foundation of the society. The Catholic church lost England over marriage it was so important. Although mistresses, prostitutes and divorces have often betrayed the failure of the institution on an individual level, marriage nonetheless always remained the cultural norm and ideal.

We’re often told that there was a great homosexual tradition in ancient Rome and Greece. Pederasty may have been common in Greece and homosexuality an open secret in Rome, but in both the traditional understanding of a one man one woman marriage held sway. When Christianity induced Roman Emperors Constantius II and Constans to ban homosexual marriage, they were simply codifying what had largely existed in practice since the beginning of Rome. (Although Nero is said to have married both men and women, for the marriages where Nero played the woman, he was mocked… to the extent one could mock the Emperor in Rome. On the occasion that Nero was the bridegroom he had his slave Sporos castrated so that he could play the role of bride.) In no western country had homosexual marriage ever enjoyed countenance on equal footing with heterosexual marriage until the Netherlands legalized gay marriage in 2000.

Opposition to gay marriage should not be construed to suggest that homosexual couples should be second class citizens. On the contrary. They should have the same freedom to share in the blessings of liberty as any other citizens. Many states have approved civil unions that provide same sex couples with the same benefits and opportunities that married couples enjoy. As for the federal government and the marriage penalty, they should get out of the income tax business and implement the FairTax. For years the notion of same sex partners not being allowed into hospital rooms or not being allowed to be on one another’s insurance policy were the issues at the vanguard of the gay rights movement. Typically civil union legislation has wiped away such concerns and in many cases legislation has turned civil unions into marriage in everything but name only.

Fundamentally once you get past the issue of financial benefits and contracts, you’re left with the sheen of language. The simple question is, does the idea of, the ideal of marriage have any value to the culture as a whole? Does our government have a vested interest in promoting the ideal of the traditional nuclear family? Europe provides a stunning example of what happens when marriage ceases to be a central focus of the society. For forty years, from Italy to the UK to Portugal to Germany the experience has been very much the same. As marriage and family became less important, less of a priority, one by one the countries have become basket cases. Marriage rates are down by half across the continent. (Even amongst that greatly reduced number, a UK study recently found that in places 3 out of 4 marriages were shams for the specific purpose of staying in the country.) Divorce rates are up. Birth rates amongst native Europeans has fallen far below the replacement rate. What births they are experiencing are increasingly being had out of wedlock and more and more frequently the state is responsible for providing the basic support for those children. More and more the family is becoming irrelevant as everybody becomes a ward of the state.

Across the continent countries are losing their identities as the only growth they are experiencing comes from immigrants largely from countries that do not share the same core, fundamental, traditional western values. As a result Europe is facing tremendous challenges. Greece is burning as the socialist state can not support itself. France faces constant uprisings from youths who have spent their lives in France but feel no loyalty to the country or its culture. England is seeing growing pockets of immigrants demanding that they no longer be subject to British law but instead to Sharia. These problems start with the divorce of the state from its culture, and marriage between a man and a woman has been one of the core elements of western culture for more than two millennia.

As has so often happened over the last 200 years, the United States is where the west’s future is written... twice America was the last man standing who helped pull it back from the brink of hell. The question is, are we going to be pulled further into the European morass of cultural ambiguity where all ideals are equal, where no institutions survive an aggrieved minority and the state has no role in maintaining the nation? Or are we going to recognize that the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman, while imperfect in execution, is one of those fundamental ideas that ties us to our history, our culture and has helped shape the world we live in? If the answer is the latter, is it not worth preserving?

6 comments:

  1. If you remove the religious presumptions regarding marriage and what has "always been understood", then what exactly is the issue with redefining marriage? Even as a Christian, I've always had a huge issue with the religious right feeling its their right and obligation to legislate how everyone should live.

    As far as the idea that allowing same-sex marriages could lead to worse things, even child brides, I hate to break it to you but that already goes on in our heterosexual, western culture.

    I hardly think the deterioration of the family can be blamed on homosexual couples since they've never been recognized as families anyway. It seems to me its the heterosexual couples who are having children out of wedlock and getting divorces. In fact, the homosexual couples I know have, or would love to adopt and provide families to the many children het people have and then give up, abuse or abandon.

    "Because its how its always been done" is never an adequate reason to continue to do something that is "imperfect in execution".

    ReplyDelete
  2. My suggestion that perhaps we should not change the definition is not religiously motivated, but rather cultural – which sounds strange coming from a fence sitting agnostic / atheist libertarian type. Nor is it because that’s the way it’s always been. Rather, the question I would ask is does the state have a vested interest in maintaining the ideal of the one man one woman marriage?

    I’d suggest yes. Traditional marriage has been a pillar of western and American culture for 2,500 years not because of habit, but because it works. No other family structure has ever worked as well in terms of providing a strong foundation for a society. As such, until some other form of structure can be demonstrated to be an equally strong building block for society, I think the state has an interest in holding that as the ideal. Like everything else, many, perhaps most of us may fail to achieve that ideal, but there is a difference between not achieving a goal and not having one. Just because there are dozens of different potential family structures doesn’t mean that all are equally good for society.

    It’s very much a slippery slope and once you start down it there is no rational reason to stop. Along those lines, while we do have child brides here in the US, thankfully they are few and far between. I know I’d certainly not like to see them become common or the norm.

    I wouldn’t suggest the cultural collapse of the west is due to homosexual couples. Not at all. I’d suggest that it comes from a shift from individual responsibility to the socialist / statist notion where the state replaces the family for everything from morals to education to income. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Western Europe, with all of its problems, is the place where one can go and the government will take care of you from the cradle to the grave – literally – even if because of that poorly administered state you are perpetually unhappy, live in a shoebox sized house and drive a matchbook sized car. All of that while the states themselves are failing. Once you’ve made the state your family what do you do when that state can no longer support itself?

    I think the bottom line for me is that nature probably forms us more than nurture in the area of orientation and that everyone should be free to pursue happiness however they see fit assuming they don’t harm others. Nonetheless, because traditional marriage has a two millennia track record of success in terms of underlying the advance of western culture, I think the government has a vested interest in suggesting that as the ideal to strive for, with the understanding that many, perhaps most of us will fail at it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wasn't necessarily stating you were using religious beliefs as the cornerstone for your position. I had no idea what your religious beliefs were. Most people I hear who oppose same sex marriages however do so based on their religious be...liefs.

    You seem to be putting same sex marriage in a catch-22. Of course no other family structure has worked as well historically. No other family structure has typically been allowed except for a married man and woman. Just how is another structure supposed to demonstrate it can be equally as strong if its not allowed to even exist?

    Can you really state that traditional marriage has had a track record of success???? Arranged/forced marriages, child brides, adultery, murder and divorce are not my idea of successful. Not to mention the number of marriages through out history where the couple stayed together only because it was culturally unacceptable to divorce or for the sake of the children. And these things aren't just products of modern times.

    Vested interest or not, as someone who does not live a traditional lifestyle, I don't believe the government has any place in deciding only certain combinations of consenting adults can marry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You’re right; the track record of marriage is far from pristine. It shares that distinction with everything on the planet that involves man – as in people, not males… although some might suggest the latter is more accurate. As such, it brings to mind Winston Churchill’s characterization of democracy “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

    It does look a little like a Catch 22. Not quite however. The beauty of our federal system is that is supposed to be a collection of 50 different experiments going on at the same time, a competition of ideas. That is how the system was set up, so that different ideas could be tested in different places and eventually the best ideas come to the surface and are accepted by other states. That process helps the rational evolution and evaluation of new and sometimes controversial ideas into the mainstream. It was actually working in this case until Judge Walker decided to throw a wrench into the works.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am a hard core states' rights advocate. I firmly believe the federal government has way overstepped its constitutional powers in all areas of our lives. That being said, I also believe there are extremely rare situations when it isn't practical and doesn't make sense to leave a choice at the state level.

    I live in an area where I can literally be within minutes of two states and a district. I can be in two other states within an hour. A good majority of people I know do not work in the same state/district as the one they live in. Imagine what would happen if Virginia decided it wasn't going to recognize marriages from any other state. What would companies do with workers who live and were married in Maryland? By Virginia law once they cross the border they are no longer married. Their spouses no longer have any right to medical coverage or even the employee's retirement if something happened to them. The whole concept opens up a huge can of worms. What if the states around you decided they were no longer going to recognize your marriage?

    I think marriage falls firmly into the category of "pursuit of happiness"...in theory at least...and that is a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation. I also think an argument could be made for the precedence of marriage as an interstate commerce as marriages are allowed to be transferred freely from one state to another. And that is a power the constitution does indeed give to the federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Constitution is a tremendous document. I’m particularly a fan of the 9th and 10th Amendments. I’ve never been one to suggest that the only rights are those explicitly ensconced in the document itself. Madison didn’t want a Bill of Rights in the first place (despite later proposing one…) specifically because he worried that the enumeration of some rights might somehow be taken by some government as explicit proof that others not enumerated did not exist. (Also he felt a BoR unnecessary as the only powers the federal government had were those explicitly listed… what a crazy guy!) Nonetheless, to the degree that marriage may indeed be a right I would still argue that the meaning of the word itself requires one man and one woman.

    While having spent 10 years living in the Metro area I can understand the challenge of different jurisdictions, that is the beauty of our federalist system itself. States compete for your business and residency. People utilize their freedom to vote with their feet. Companies hiring employees do the same.

    John Yoo had a great piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. He actually supports gay marriage but talks about the problem with judges like Walker (or any other court for that matter) imposing such a decision by fiat rather than allowing the states to address the idea and let that lead to a national consensus wherever that might lead. He draws a great parallel with Roe v. Wade. If we want to make that change to the language the amendment process exists for just such types of issues.

    As for the Interstate Commerce clause. It has become a leviathan. While one could make an argument for Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, the clause has become the last refuge of scoundrels in that Congress and the courts have decided that it is the vehicle with which they can achieve anything they want. In a nation where everything from car parts to blood supply to socks to haircuts have some element of interstate commerce impacting them, there is literally nothing that goes on in our lives that could not potentially be subject to that clause.

    I think Walker’s ruling, particularly yesterday’s decision to lift his stay, puts the debate squarely on the front burner of the political landscape. Not sure how Kennedy will vote, but for proponents of gay marriage I’m not sure that’s a good thing in the long run.

    ReplyDelete