Andrew thinks he's found a coherent position:
If you believe, as Stanley Kurtz does, that it is critical to maintain the cultural link between marriage and parenting, we do have an obvious option: give all couples civil unions and let them be converted to marriage licenses if and when the couple has or adopts children. That would honor both the marriage-parenting link, and remove the indefensible heterosexual privilege that the law now upholds. But it won't happen - because straight couples without children would be appalled at how it denigrates their relationships and makes them second-class citizens. Well, at least they would then know how it feels like to be gay.
The primary problem with such a proposal is that although child rearing is the primary/critical reason for marriage, it isn't the only reason. The issue is whether gay marriage would undermine that critical function indirectly. Direct effects of gay marriage are rather irrelevant, since only 0.5% of children are in homes with gay parent figures. And, of course, the main reason such a proposal would not be acceptable to Andrew is that it would benefit a diminishly small proportion of the gay population. I just have a hunch he wouldn't find this attractive.
But the notion of a two-tiered system of marriage has merit, whether you call it "marriage lite" versus "marriage heavy" or you do as Sullivan's reader suggests. In fact, I'd tweak it a bit further and simply make a stipulation that all couples who produce children must be married (enforcing shotgun marriage, essentially) and that no couple with children younger than three are eligible for divorce. In fact, if we could establish a system with those modifications I'd probably drop my objection to gay marriage. And not only would such a system preserve the essential function of marriage, but it would also almost certainly hold down population growth.
My brother, my sisters, and I were the product of a shotgun marriage. Eventually our parents divorced, but not until most of us were grown. This arrangement was enormously beneficial for us, and I can't imagine that we'd have had anything like the sort of rearing that has blessed us throughout our lives had any of us been raised by a single parent, especially during our first three years. This is the sort of story that has all-but disappeared from American life... and we need to find a way to re-establish it. Whether or not it's appropriate to bring it back through the authority of the state would probably be extremely difficult to establish, but the fact that it would require state intervention may provide some measure of just how much the culture has lost (and how much there is still to lose).
Addendum: You know it occured to me, after re-thinking the parthenogenesis theme, that it might make some sense to simply constrained the initiation of the marriage contract to those who can produce eggs. A non-producer could only become married by "invitation." This would, of course, exclude all male homosexuals from marriage, but would not exclude lesbians.
Posted by Demosophist at July 23, 2004 01:52 PM | TrackBackI've also thought that a two-tiered marriage system might be a good legal response to the changes in marriage. I don't know if it's feasible, or desirable, to enforce shot-gun weddings of single people, but couples in "marriage lite" who conceive, could automatically enter "marriage heavy", and that prospect could be one of the conditions of "marriage lite".
As I see it, any two people can throw themselves a wedding and call themselves married. The issue is what sorts of couples should get what sorts of legal rights and responsibilities and financial benefits from the government. I think it's only decent to allow people of any sex in a committed relationship to have legal status as next-of-kin for purposes of hospital visits, decision-making when one is incapacitated, and joint ownership of their home. Since everyone in society has a stake in the next generation, I support government and insurance benefits being structured to support people who are raising children - whether same-sex or opposite-sex couples or singles. What I object to is the government (via the tax structure and Social Security) giving special financial advantages to childless people, simply because they are in a couple. Of course, if Social Security were privatized, the biggest part of that problem would dissipate.
Yeah, having the state impose shotgun weddings is obviously a nightmare scenario, and strictly speaking would probably do a great deal more harm than good to the institution. Not very well thought through, but you catch my drift. There may be certain things society, or even the state, could do to create big disincentives for raising children out of wedlock that might have, at least in part, the effect of shotgun weddings.
Posted by: Scott (to UpNights) at July 26, 2004 12:55 AMYou could effectively enforce shotgun weddings by making the following simple change to the law: no government benefits of any kind to an unmarried person with children under 18. And, I mean no benefits of ANY kind (no welfare, no SSI, no medicaid, no foodstamps, no subsidized daycare, etc. -- and no bypassing it by giving "to the children"). This would make it all but impossible for most single mothers to raise children (at least without strong family support, which could partially offset the disadvantages of not having a father in the house). Since this would hit mothers worse than fathers, we should also consider something like a 10% tax surcharge on fathers who sire children out of wedlock. I imagine we would see a sharp increase both in "voluntary" and in shotgun weddings without any state compulsion whatsoever.
Posted by: Ben at July 26, 2004 09:41 AMYou can't punish the children for the idiotic choices of their parents by removing all social support for unwed mothers.
Posted by: Jane at July 27, 2004 12:22 AMYou can't punish the children for the idiotic choices of their parents by removing all social support for unwed mothers.
Well, it's morally dubious... but so is denial of resources to those upon whom fortune has failed to shine. And what about the moral debt of the fathers who have (if the theory of IQ has any merit) have managed to rob their children of fortune's critical light? What to do?
The greatest single thing we could do to turn the light of fortune on the greatest number of people is to find a way to ensure that parents stay together through the first three years of their children's lives. You can use a carrot or a stick, but it's probably best to use both somehow. And it mightn't be a bad idea to rehabilitate the concept of shame, a little.
Posted by: Scott (to Jane) at July 27, 2004 02:22 AMShame is good, two parents (as someone who grew up without a father and now sees her kids with their great dad) is the ultimate benefit for kids.
As an ex-liberal, those social concern impulses still remain when it comes to anybody under 12. It can't be too easy for the parents (workfare is good) but no extreme measures that in effect punish the child allowed.
las vegas police test training http://laslvptt.adhedoria.info/
window treatment design http://window-treatment-design.addforge.info/
protecto truck bed cover http://protectoptbc.actology.info/
austin apartments for sale http://austinaafs.adkeycards.info/
can msm relieve uti http://cancmru.adageinc.info/
modify audi tt http://modify-audi-tt.addotta.info/
condos cancun http://condos-cancun.adeccoftp.info/
unlock samsung cell phone http://unlockuscp.actorr7.info/
cartomanzia seconda b lezione b http://cartomanziasblb.acuacu.info/
merrell sprint blast http://merrell-sprint-blast.activnail.info/
california office space for rent http://californiacosfr.addamslaw.info/
scheda losers v 2 rilanciare senza limite http://schedalv2rsl.add-a-ware.info/
patio cover http://patio-cover.haotronic.info/
14k charms http://14k-charms.adambrodey.info/
1985 corvette http://1985-corvette.harleyt.info/
f100 ford trucks http://f100-ford-trucks.acton-aa.info/
bingo bride card free printable http://bingobcfp33.actdi.info/
golf whistler vancouver bc http://golfgwvb.addikion.info/
fax broadcast server http://fax-broadcast-server.activnail.info/
capital of mexico http://capital-of-mexico.addapad.info/
days inn motel directory http://daysdimd.happper.info/
sheet piling http://sheet-piling.adminmed.info/
i forgot my wireless security network password http://iifmwsnp.hardfly.info/
kids quarters furniture orlando http://kidskqfo.adambrodey.info/
nokia 6230 headset http://nokia-6230-headset.hardfly.info/
smoking and asthma http://smoking-and-asthma.harehore.info/
toyota tacoma 4x4 extra cab for sale in nc http://toyotatt4ecfsin.adminmed.info/
hard hat girls http://hard-hat-girls.acrowkh.info/
titan cruise lines http://titan-cruise-lines.acuition.info/
mommy phoebe phone sex http://mommympps.adnego.info/
hard hat liner2b winter http://hardhhlw.adinabox.info/
renters insurance http://renters-insurance.adailyverse.info/
montreal apartment listings http://montreal-apartment-listings.addforge.info/
cortisol circadian rhythms http://cortisol-circadian-rhythms.actsi.info/
bonding tracks hair extensions http://bondingbthe.activashow.info/
dvd player for car http://dvddpfc.addapad.info/
cadillac escalade diecast http://cadillac-escalade-diecast.acrowkh.info/
mexico the little virgin http://mexicomtlv.addapad.info/
vcr dvd recorder http://vcr-dvd-recorder.addalamp.info/
fixed annuities http://fixed-annuities.addapad.info/
audio signal analysis http://audio-signal-analysis.adnego.info/
prozac nation christina ricci http://prozacpncr.ad-union.info/
manga poses http://manga-poses.adinabox.info/
bariatric treatment centers at forest health medical center http://bariatricbtcafhmc.haotronic.info/
men pajamas http://men-pajamas.adidu.info/
one hot mamma maternity http://oneohmm.adietya.info/
custom motorcycles http://custom-motorcycles.actess.info/
dog training certification http://dog-training-certification.addapad.info/
camera security bag 35mm http://cameracsb3.adietya.info/
free slot machine game cleopatra http://freesmgc55.acspeed.info/