The following is from Drezner's wonderful comment section:
(But first, an observation. Sullivan solicits an order of magnitude more cash than Drezner to support his blog, yet provides no comment section. Why is that?)
Now, for the comment, which includes some back and forth between James Miller and Andrew Sullivan:
Patrick: How in the world does a couple of gay guys or gals getting married demean my marriage to my wife? Seriously, does anyone have a rational response to this?Simple and rational; if a little lenthy...it's a gross misuse of the label.
Consider the parallel brought up by James Miller some months ago. In making his case against Civil unions as a substitute for Homosexual 'marragies" Miller compares marriage and civil unions as brand names. Says he:
Brand name analysis proves that civil unions for gay couples can't fully substitute for marriage. If you started a fast-food restaurant, it would be easier to call your place McDonald's than to use some new unknown brand name. Sure, in time you could build up this new brand to become as locally well-respected as McDonald's name, but for the near future at least, you're better off going with the existing brand.
Sullivan picked up on that argument and responded:
Miller says the critical question is whether expanding marriage to include gays will "dilute" the brand. I think it will strengthen it by making it universal.
To which I respond:
Not so fast. Let's extend this hypothetical a bit.
Would MacDonalds respond with your thinking, Andrew, or would they file a damage suit? They would of course do the latter, pointing out that the people stealing the MacDonalds name, are trying to push their product as something it was not, and claim (not without some justification) that doing so caused the real MacDonalds chain damage, wouldn't they?
Posted by Bithead at February 25, 2004 01:55 PM
Yeah, yeah it's a crassly capitalistic analogy. But it reveals something interesting about the focus of gays on "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions." It says something about the value for gays. Not so obviously the "how much," but at least the "why." It is not a value that was created by gays for gays, but by heterosexuals for heterosexuals. And it has a character that is diluted once that defining characteristic is no longer valid. The issue is "how diluted," not "whether." And clearly there need not be any "profit motive" involved in establishing the brand originally for it to have value, or for that value to be attractive to exploitation by a group that had no hand in creating it.
The issue is not "whether" but "how much."
The logic, in case you missed it, is incandescently simple. The "negative effect" of same-sex marriage on heterosexual marriage is simply revealed by the different values that gays place on civil union versus marriage. The "negative effect" is the net sum of this difference.
Update: The following compromise suggested by OpinionJournal.com would, in effect, allow a buy-in to the franchise after demonstrating an appropriate level of quality control and market viability. (Dontcha just love market allusions?)
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman."
Simple and direct. Massachusetts and California could institute same-sex marriage and the rest of us could sit back and watch the results unfold with no risk at all that the concept would necessarily spread, until there were some significant results. (At least two generations, or somewhere between 20 and 40 years of data, including panel studies to sort out the causation thing.) I could live with that. And I see no reason at all a group of "non-partisan" senators and congressmen couldn't propose it, win a required 2/3rds vote and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states in pretty short order.
Posted by Demosophist at February 28, 2004 01:46 AM | TrackBack