Demosophia

Armed Liberal on Gay Marriage

A.L. is definitely living up to his personna, but if he doesn't mind I'd like to challenge him a little on his latest post about same-sex marriage. He begins with a geological/evolutionary paradigm that isn't altogether unfamiliar:

Here's the image I have in my mind when I talk about it [meaning the same-sex marriage issue]; as a society and as people, our values are complex, and often on some level, self-contradictory. I don't see that as wrong, I just see it as human. At the highest, simplest, most public levels, the values tend to align. But deeper, it looks like the strata underneath California - more faults and temporarily stable dislocations than solid bedrock.

I have a somewhat different, but perhaps compatible, perspective. I have a sense of gravity about issues like this that derives from my social science training, so the fact that things seem copasetic on the surface doesn't necessarily convey to me a sense of order. I look at a cake, and wonder what sort of wreckage may be lurking under the frosting. Is it even edible? Concerning the same-sex marriage issue I think one has to consider the motivations, and I have a sense that some well-meaning people like Armed Liberal are cutting these folks a lot of slack. I don't think very many gays even want to get married. Certainly the motivation that seems to blind heteros to all reason, that of propagating their own genes, is completely lacking. Is this a good or bad thing? Shucks, how would I know? It could be good. It could be bad. But it's sure different, and that doesn't automatically imply an empirical wash.

To me it's a little like hanging a newly washed garment. Gravity tends to "iron out" the wrinkles. I'm not sure how much faith I have in that perspective when it comes to social institutions, however. What principle subs for gravity? Are we ignoring gravity here, meaning a few thousand years of history? Is there a subterranean principle that represents the collective intent of that history? Lets ignore "human fulfillment" for a second. Taking an immense shortcut (because I just don't want to cite all the sources) isn't this fundamentally about rule following behavior? Or, to use a Hayekian concept: just conduct?

I propose that the institution of marriage evolved to maximize the potential for just conduct. Now there's an inherent tension between just conduct and optimizing return. If there weren't, there'd be no need for authority. But the "family" provides the earliest incentives that we have for adherence to authority, by mixing authority with unconditional love (or some rough approximation thereof). The folks who compose our family are the only people on earth who are likely to love us even if they don't happen to like us. This is usually an extremely stable equilibrium upon which to construct a civilization. It buys us a lot of slack in the interface between human civilization and nature (human or otherwise). And this, in turn, rests on a sense of obligation that is not entirely rational, and could be under extreme stress, beneath the surface of things.

And that dynamic system changes over time in response to events, to changes in belief or behavior, to a kind of social evolution.

OK, not a "kind of " social evolution. Social evolution. Again, where is the locus of gravity? Or what is the zenith of aspiration? What gets things into alignment without excessive attention to detail? I'm willing to learn.

As a believer in punctuated equilibrium, I also see that as a metaphor for patterns in societies.

Which brings me to Gavin Newsome (who looks like he is going to rival Joe Alioto and Wille Brown as a Bay Area political figure) and his act of civil disobedience - because it really can't be characterized in any other way.

Well, actually it can. Some people characterize it as usurpation. Moreover, ascribing a motivation as lofty as the civil rights movement to a politician who may simply see this as a good opportunity to wrest himself clear of his greener rivals might be seeing a silk purse in a sow's ear. It might not, of course. I try to see silk purses whenever I can. What's the gravitas? Civil rights? Really? Forgive me, but I'm a bit cynical here. Civil Rights isn't about acceptance of someone elses whim, but about accomodation of the deepest and surest aspirations that humans have. NONE of these folks are motivated by a need or compulsion to propagate their genes, the central "theme" of marriage. They may, in fact, be able to mimic this sort of short term transcendence of local rationality for the sake of global rational calculation, but how real is it? I am sure that homosexual bonds are as romantic and genuine, and even as long lasting, as heterosexual bonds. But there's just something missing, isn't there?

Now, I don't want to be chauvinistic here. I'm not interested in buying legitimacy for my argument by claiming some sort of primacy for genetic inheritance. The desire to promote rule systems in social evolution can be just as compelling as the desire to perpetuate genetic patterns. It can be just as valid. So, in principle at least, there could be equal depth to the impulses of gay people for legitimate romantic union, if those impulses are instrumental to perpetuating systems of rules that are vital to them. That's social evolution. But is there something as compelling here as the rearing of a child, from cradle to adolescence, for the sake of the precision of their unconscious smile or the promise of some future genius or hero of sacrifice? Is there anything even comparable? Or is it just that we're simply embarrassed to say, without equivocation, "there isn't?"

Insert response here...

I'm really pleased that he's doing this. I think that this is going to be remembered along with the sit-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter. These are events that are among the first signs of real slippage on those faults as society aligns itself anew. That's how social change happens. A small event that would have been lost at another point in history, manages to set of a wider shift - because the underlying forces were in place to make society receptive to it.

What are the underlying forces that are comparable to the Civil Rights Movement? I am generally unaware of the condition of the earth under my feet until it starts to shake or belch smoke, so might it not be possible that this so-called "alignment" is merely inattention? African Americans are humans with a genetic and propagative impulse as vital as that of whites, or any other race (if there even is such a thing as "race"), and the justice of allowing that impulse to be expressed freely within the context of either traditional marriage or competition for career and employment seems undeniably compelling. That was the issue in ending the Jim Crow laws, more or less. But I can't see that the principle associated with same-sex marriage is anything other than a right to imitate those compelling impulses. This isn't to say that I necessarily oppose it. Many heterosexual couples marry, who remain barren. And couples stay married long after their children have left the nest. There are powerful reasons for marriage that have nothing to do with the "central theme." Companionship, personal fulfillment, health, longevity, a helpmate. But which of these could not be supported by a parallel institution such as civil union?

Isn't the primary motivation of a gay couple seeking marriage vows to essentially dramatize (let's forget the term "mimic") a commitment that comes from a primary source of motivation they don't, and can't, possess? Barren heterosexual couples contribute to the central theme of marriage by legitimating and serving as examples of fidelity. Their function is ancillary, but compatible if not directly supportive. There is some reason to think that homosexual couples might perform a similar role or function, but does acceptance of this at face value really rise to the level of just conduct displayed in the Civil Rights Movement?

There are a nexus of functions around which the institutional, legal, and cultural arrangements of marriage are clustered. These include:

1. Accommodation of a genetic compulsion to propagate, within the context of a coherent and orderly society. Children relate to an authority figure, and learn to love those they don't necessarily like. They also learn to like those that don't always love. Lately we have even discovered that marriage and family are instrumental in the development of intelligence. It isn't quantity, it's quality.
2. Accommodation of intimacy and the support for cooperation between gender opposites. This is no mean task. Each person in the pair has weaknesses and strengths that complement those of the partner and are directly related to gender.
3. Protection of the group from the vagaries of nature and the whims of the larger society.
4. Companionship and personal fulfillment.
5. The archetypal "miniature society" in which behaviors and cooperative strategies are first deployed, tested, and learned.

With regard to gay couples 3 and 4 have relevance almost universally. 1 and 5 have relevance only in some situations, where children are present in the family for some reason (adoption, divorce, insemination, infidelity). 2. is, at best, marginally relevant. But more to the point I think the cultural institution of marriage is probably not adequate to the challenges that homosexual couples may face. I'm no family expert but it seems to me that whatever inequalities may exist between homosexual partners, they are not a consequence of gender opposition. This, my intuition tells me, may prove to be the source of some of the most problematic unintended consequences of expanding the franchise of marriage to include gays. And interestingly their initial 'negative effect' will be on gays, rather than heteros.

I believe that the gay community needs to keep fighting for this, and when the victories come - like this one - cherish them and use them for fuel to keep going for the rest of the fight.

Explain the term "victory" here? What would be the visceral reaction if you saw a line of heterosexual couples circling the downtown neighborhood waiting to be "married" by virtue of a legally dubious and usurpative authority? Would you think "Isn't that wonderful?" Or would you recall the mass weddings of the Moonie cult? Would you leap to the conclusion that these folks were serious about marriage or about a political agenda? Is the latter really a good basis for a lifetime commitment? Are these really good candidates for expansion of the franchise?

I wish I knew, but I don't. And I still haven't uncovered that gravitas that would iron out the wrinkles I only dimly perceive at this early stage. How does any of this lend itself to the maintenance of just conduct and adherence to rules in the behavior of future generations? Because that's what marriage and family are about, really. Aren't they?

And, most important, to realize that while those who oppose this are wrong and that this is a struggle - that hating and demonizing them is not going to make victory come sooner, and in the end will make the battle less worth winning.

Well, since I'm not taking a position on the ultimate rectitude of this shift it's hard for me to see that I could be "wrong" in calling for a modicum of caution and (as a conservative gay friend of mine puts it) "a little less pushiness." I have been toying with the notion that the issue of same-sex "marriage" is analogous to the expansion of a franchise or brand name. It certainly isn't impossible that the expansion might be beneficial to the current "key holders." But those people have certain expectations related to the way the institution has evolved to meet their specific needs, and altering the nature of that institution without notice constitutes a kind of "breach of contract," doesn't it? Can we discuss this, rationally?

Moreover those who are petitioning to become members of the franchise are simply asserting that they'll maintain appropriate quality control, and that concerns about that and about other alterations that might dilute the brand are ill-founded and silly. Essentially what they're asking is for the heterosexual community to accept their unvarnished assurances that there will be no substantial negative consequences for society in general, and they propose this not only without any evidence, but, mockingly, without even the respect of acknowledging that concerns are anything more than irrational bigotry! This is not the way to petition for acceptance, is it?

What they propose is to appropriate or even confiscate the brand, by virtue of claiming a "right" as inalienable as that of humans not to be bought and sold by other humans, or the freedom of citizens to participate in the political process that determines their fate. Well, if this is true let's push away from the table and get to the task immediately! But if it isn't, then perhaps we ought to pause for a little reflection about precisely what it is we're doing and what the unintended consequence might be. At the very least, where is that gravitas that's supposed to be the Force Majeure that pulls things into alignment, in the long run?

Unlike Armed Liberal I think there's an enormous chasm to be crossed before we arrive at this promised land, and I'm not sure that same-sex marriage is even part of that promise. I don't have any position, yet, on whether same-sex marriage is good or bad for society. It may be extremely good, extremely bad, or indifferent. And I can see a rational case for all three positions. But it seems to me that rushing into a writ-large and irreversible social experiment with such enormous consequences and so little to go on is a little... immature?

Posted by Demosophist at February 29, 2004 10:41 PM | TrackBack