Will marriage change?
CommentsIn Re Marriage Cases ruled that same-sex marriage “will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage.” This echoes common “marriage equality” rhetoric, that claims gay marriage won’t change marriage, it will strengthen marriage. More conservative gays like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch have made especially interesting arguments that same-sex marriage would strengthen the institution and American society, rather than cause harm.
If only it were true.
First of all, it is admirable that the “marriage equality” movement has hammered its talking points home to such a degree that few LGBT people openly talk about their hostility toward marriage or their goal to see marriage change. But many gays and lesbians definitely feel that way. The most recent director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman, told the National Journal three years ago that part of his goal in promoting same-sex marriage was to bring flexibility to the sexist institution itself: “Marriage is a profoundly conservative institution, and in many states it works against women in a very significant way.”
Then just today I got an E-mail from a reader of my “Blowback” piece in the LA Times. Regan DuCasse, a frequent poster on LGBT Web sites who lives in the San Fernando Valley, wrote me that “the intents and purposes of marriage have traditionally and inherently been misogynist and it can be argued that discomfort and hostility towards gay men and women are an extension of that misogyny. Equality in marriage is more a step towards an egalitarian purpose.” In other words, at least some LGBT people are hostile toward marriage as it exists, and they’re trying to “fix” it in part by opening it up to same-sex couples. Which they have the right to try to do. I just think everyone else should be informed about their true goals.
Then there are the actual ways that extending marriage to same-sex couples will change the institution. I’ll list just three:
• It will no longer automatically contain the ideal configuration for raising a child.
• Problematic kinds of relationships that are commonly found in the LGBT community but virtually unheard of among opposite-sex couples - such as relationships based on the incest model (Daddy-boy relationships) and chattel slavery (master-slave relationships) will have every right to use the word marriage to describe their disturbing mode for two spouses to relate to each other.
• It is quite rare for heterosexual (or lesbian!) couples to come up with “monogamy of the heart” or “ethical non-monogamy” agreements that allow each other to have sex with outsiders as long as certain conditions are met (like no kissing, or only out of town, or only if I can watch). Such arrangements are more the rule than the exception among male-male relationships. Gay.com claims that about a third of gay couples are sexually exclusive, and that number sounds high to me. I have never been at a soiree with multiple straight “committed” couples in which someone suggests we take off our clothes and see what happens, but I’m sad to say it’s happened with gay friends in long-term relationships. Of course, I know, many men cheat on their wives. But they almost never define their marriage as something that accommodates adultery.
So I’m afraid I have to conclude that marriage will change if it is opened to same-sex couples, which is precisely what some, but not all, advocates of “marriage equality” would like to see happen.
• It will no longer automatically contain the ideal configuration for raising a child.
But this is simply not true. It’s not a fact, it’s a presumption and a mistaken one. No conservative ever lifted a finger to actually check whether it was true - they just sat back in complacent faith that the traditional contempt of same-sex relations must be there for a reason and invented one out of thin air. And when it turned out that, empirically, same-sex couples are just as good adoptive parents as opposite-sex ones, which is the only point of comparison that matters, to quite enough precision to be getting on with, they just stuck their heads in the sand and made up lame excuses for ignoring the experience of every adoption agency that’s ever looked at the matter.
• Problematic kinds of relationships that are commonly found in the LGBT community but virtually unheard of among opposite-sex couples - such as relationships based on the incest model (Daddy-boy relationships) and chattel slavery (master-slave relationships) will have every right to use the word marriage to describe their disturbing mode for two spouses to relate to each other.
Do you have an argument, or are you just going for shock value and hoping no one actually thinks? Why exactly are these things problematic and why do they represent a change? For example, where exactly is it written in the fine print of modern civil marriage, or any other sort of marriage, that the two partners have to be the same age? It’s not even all that customary - traditionally men have always tended to seek young wives, and women have tended to seek older husbands. Typically the difference is only a few years but unless you can present some argument as to why that difference but no more is peachy, then you’ve got nothing.
And as for chattel slavery, you ought to be rejoicing. The standard model of marriage in Western culture until only a few decades ago _was_ symbolic chattel slavery: the women was the property of the father until the wedding ceremony at which point she was “given away” to become the property of the husband. I wouldn’t dream of attempting to restore such a potentially abusive situation as the norm, but I don’t see that it’s any business of mine trying to break up such arrangements if they’re working, and I certainly don’t see that you have any moral standing to complain.
• It is quite rare for heterosexual (or lesbian!) couples to come up with “monogamy of the heart” or “ethical non-monogamy” agreements that allow each other to have sex with outsiders as long as certain conditions are met (like no kissing, or only out of town, or only if I can watch). Such arrangements are more the rule than the exception among male-male relationships.
And again, this is a change how and a problem how? Of course very likely it’s a change from religious marriage, where the parties are not considered to be free to negotiate such arrangements. But it’s not a change from the actual fineprint of modern civil marriage, and it’s not much of a change from actual practice - an understanding of monogamy is a very sensible default for both straight and gay couple, but opposite-sex couples have always negotiated such agreements. Dan Savage notes in his book Skipping Toward Gommorrah that wherever he looked, in towns big and small across the US, he found swingers clubs. You’re seeing what you want to see. And don’t even get me started on Brittney Spears.
Mark-
I have responded to your comment about parenting in an entire post “Can a lesbian be a good father?”
I do have an argument about Daddy-boy couples, which I made at length at MarriageDebate.com. See http://www.marriagedebate.com/labels/incest.htm
The problem with Daddy-boy relationships is not the age differential, but that they confuse father-son roles with spouse-spouse roles. Many such relationships eroticize incest, and a small minority of them have the Daddy adopt the son, which means they practice actual incest. I do not believe it helps marriage for such couples to claim that they are married.
It’s fine that you want to reward male-male couples that act out master-slave relationships “if they’re working,” but I I think confusing marriage with servitude is bad for everybody. Please make loud and public arguments that we should expand marriage to include gay couples in master-slave relationships, because I think when you do, people are going to have second thoughts about what “marriage equality” entails.
I believe that only a tiny percentage of heterosexual married couples “negotiate” agreements that allow both partners to have sex outside the marriage. If you can point me to evidence not written by an openly gay advocate of same-sex marriage, I’d be very interested in hearing it.
And let me get started on Brittney Spears for you: she’s not heterosexual. She’s bisexual. So how does pointing to an LGBT person who is deeply confused about what marriage is help you make your argument? It appears to help me make my argument.
David, you say that “I believe that only a tiny percentage of heterosexual married couples “negotiate” agreements that allow both partners to have sex outside the marriage.” Let’s say that number is just one percent. That number already exceeds the total number of same-sex couples in the US (if you believe the reports from the US Census).
Given that same-sex couples will represent only a very tiny proportion of married couples and only a fraction of them have these types of relationships, even if a very small fraction of heterosexual marriages have non-monogomous relationship agreements, their numbers will still exceed the number of non-monogomous same-sex relationships. The same holds true for daddy-boy relationships. You are confusing proportions with raw numbers here. As a result, your argument is quite flawed.
‘The problem with Daddy-boy relationships is not the age differential, but that they confuse father-son roles with spouse-spouse roles.’
Very possibly, but then equally possibly opposite-sex couples with large age differentials are doing the same thing - it’s just that nobody is so rude as to ask.
‘It’s fine that you want to reward male-male couples that act out master-slave relationships “if they’re working,” but I I think confusing marriage with servitude is bad for everybody.’
Like I said, you don’t have that luxury. You claim to be a conservative. Marriage as servitude is the tradition you’re defending. It may not be the Jewish picture, but it’s the standard Western picture for 2000 years and it’s what you’ve got to work with. Not only was the bride given away, her marriage vows (but not those of the husband) promised to “love, honour and _obey_”. Women were prevented by a variety of laws and customs from owning property or working independently of a husband, so they had little choice but to become the de-facto slave of a husband. And this changed, dramatically and within living memory, to the point where younger women who haven’t been exposed to courses on feminism are often incredulous when informed of the freedoms they take for granted that their grandmothers didn’t have. And conservatives were hopping mad about it at the time and fought it every inch of the way. But from a bit of a distance it looks so barbaric that all but the most extreme conservatives have developed selective amnesia about it, and now some it seems have the chutzpah to argue that if some SSM marriages were like that (on a consensual basis of course) it would be a bad thing.
Dan- I hardly think 1 percent is “tiny,” or that we shouldn’t be making public policies that consider minorities of that size. One percent is about the percentage of couples that are Jewish, and that are lesbian. I certainly want our laws to take their needs into consideration. I have googled and googled these topics, and there is simply no evidence that there are more Mommy-boy relationships than Daddy-boy relationships, or that there are more married straight couples that have mutual adultery agreements than male-male couples.
Mark-
If these secret Mommy-boy relationships you postulate actually exist, they’re not a problem because nobody tells about them. Daddy-boy couples have Web sites, call each other “Daddy” and “boy” when they socialize in bars (I know, I’ve met several), and even March with “Daddy-boy” signs and T-shirts in gay pride parades. Letting couples with a secret incest fetish marry does no damage to the institution. Letting all same-sex couples marry will include allowing those who act out their incest obsession openly and publicly in their daily lives. That’s not good for marriage.
I am a conservative, but before that I’m an Orthodox Jew. Orthodox Jewish marriages are absolutely not on a slavery model. I am opposed to changing marriage in such a way that allows people of any religion or gender configuration to live out their marriages in a fashion that confuses marriage with chattel slavery. If you disagree, that’s fine - just let everybody know that that’s part of your vision of “marriage equality.”
‘Daddy-boy couples have Web sites’
Just like unconventional straight people: http://www.swingersclublist.com/ . That took me two seconds on Google to find.
‘Orthodox Jewish marriages are absolutely not on a slavery model.’
That had been my impression. My point is that in a predominately Christian culture that makes you a radical. Or it would have if Christianity hadn’t started to lose large amounts of its influence beginning in the 60s.
Mark-
Have you been to the Web site you listed? Many of the ads I found involved lesbian or bisexual women. That hardly proves that gays should be allowed to marry because heterosexuals already have so many open marriages. Many of the straight couples appear to be boyfriend-girlfriend, not married. If there was a way to ensure that male-male couples would stop their “monogamy of the heart” agreements upon getting marriage, I’d be willing to drop this argument. But I cannot think of one.