I want my gay friends to marry, if they want to. There is still a conservative case for gay marriage, proposing that there are benefits. Even if the effect of same-sex marriage were neutral on society... even if it were only slightly negative, I'd be for it. I'm not entirely clear why gays want to marry though, and suspect it's just part of that agenda of being accepted as "normal." I think of being gay is part of human normalcy, and committed relationships among gays is something that the straight world will ultimately have to incorporate. And it feels awful to have to say to a gay friend who wishes me happiness in wedded bliss that I don't wish the same for them. It stinks.
But there's more at stake here than that. I simply can't deny the vital role of the child-rearing family in society. As I said, even if the indirect effect of gay marriage is only slightly negative, we can adapt and compensate. What I fear is a significant and strong indirect effect.
Child-rearing families are in trouble, due in part to changes in society that are good. (The birth control pill, changes in the role of women in the workplace, etc.) But I can't deny that we have a problem in this area, and I have not yet seen any real attempt to adapt and compensate for those changes that have already created enormous social disruption. I don't know what the effect of same-sex marriage would be on these families.
In spite of the claim by some gays that there is no relationship between gay and straight marriage, there *is* a mechanism that could hurt families. It isn't a direct effect. Gays don't intervene in heterosexual marriage when they marry a same-sex partner, except in certain exotic circumstances that wouldn't be a problem in the aggregate. But indirect effects aren't necessarily small, and I'm about fed up with the social disruption caused by the dissolution of family. I don't want to do anything that adds to that burden, and I'm not going to apologize for having that concern.
If Andrew Sullivan or someone else can propose a method by which we can experiment with the introduction of gay marriage, to get better purchase on precisely what its indirect effects might be, then I'm for it. But I think we need to talk this through, as a society. I don't think imposing a resolution through the auspices of a state supreme court that also denies it's own citizens a right already guaranteed in the Constitution (the right to keep and bear arms) is the way to resolve this issue. I just don't.
I have proposed, long long ago, the introduction of a new system of marriage that involves different levels of commitment. Perhaps that's actually what is evolving here. One type of commitment confers certain legal advantages, but denies others, that accrue to marriage. It's advantage is that it's relatively easily dissolved. Indeed, it may even have an automatic expiration date. But another type of marriage, that is invoked either voluntarily, or the instant a child is produced, severely limits the options for dissolving the marriage. The point here is that we need some sort of system that recognizes and protects the advantages that children have if they are raised in a two-parent household. Failure to do that will almost certainly ensure the intervention of the state into the sanctity of marriage, and the relationship between parent and child. Because someone will have to correct the damage done to innocents by parents exercising their "freedoms."
I think we will almost certainly end up with some two-tiered version of marriage, and rather than water-down the whole thing perhaps we ought to concentrate on the details.
Posted by Demosophist at February 27, 2004 08:23 AM | TrackBackThere are many gay couples raising children and some of those kids are in college by now. There's been at least one study on children raised by gay couples (whether by adoption or birth or children from a pervious marriage) that was quoted in the Village Voice a few years ago. Children raised by gays are gay or het themlseves in the same percentage as children raised by hets, and don't seem to show any dysfunction beyond what would be expected in any family. (I say this as someone raised by my birth parents who were married only to each other, for over 40 years, but it was an incredibly dysfucntional family and my brother and I would have been better off if my mom had divorced my dad.)
In any case there are enough study samples and probably more than one study, so if you are curious about the results of this "experiment" you don't need to wait decades to find out. I would think having those permanent unions formally recognized by state and religious institution could only be positive for the kids.
Posted by: Yehudit at February 29, 2004 05:29 AMYehudit:
In any case there are enough study samples and probably more than one study, so if you are curious about the results of this "experiment" you don't need to wait decades to find out. I would think having those permanent unions formally recognized by state and religious institution could only be positive for the kids.
I'm in favor of gay adoption, and I'd probably even agree with you about formal recognition of those unions, although it wouldn't necessarily make that much difference to the kids. This really isn't a mechanism that would concern me.
Also, I recognize that there are a lot of dysfunctional "traditional" families. But in aggregate family dissolution is an enormous risk factor, especially prior to age three of the children. In fact, if the studies are to be believed, children raised in three-parent households would probably do better than children raised in two-parent households. In the wake of the Civil War there were lots of war widows who ended up as old maid aunts helping to raise kids in large, but often poor, households. My grandfather was raised in such a family.
What I'm concerned about are a host of indirect effects on the institution that, over time, wear down the "legitimacy" of the marriage vows and contribute to family dissolution. And those effects aren't necessarily a function of any "deficiency" of gays, but simply the differences in a same-sex union. Differences, for instance, in the dynamics between couples with opposite gender obstacles to working out problems and misunderstanding and couples with same gender obstacles. They're just different situtions, and quite possibly demand different social institutions. These are things we haven't even bothered to consider. Imposing those changes on hets could very well be a kind of "breach of contract." And I think we need some long term studies to sort out and understand these changes. It's a matter of respect for what has, for thousands of years, been a heterosexual institution.
Posted by: Scott (to Yehudit) at February 29, 2004 10:52 AM