Gay Marriage: Quit whining about "protecting the children"
The battle against gay marriage is
assuming greater prominence on the conservative agenda. But why is gay marriage
anathema to conservatives? Appeals to "protect the children" won't cut it --
all married couples don't have children; some gay couples do; and marriage is
about more than procreation anyway.
Recent events, including the recognition of
gay civil unions in Vermont and the potential legalization of gay marriage in
Massachusetts, have pushed the issue of gay marriage high on the conservative
agenda. Prominent conservatives, such as those at one of my favorite websites,
National Review Online,
are now insisting that we need to go so far as to amend the US
Constitiution to guard against gay marriage. I can understand and
sympathize with the argument that a reluctant population should not be forced by
judicial activism to accept a revolutionary change that is presently unlikely to
pass the legistative process. What I still don’t get is why gay marriage
is supposed to be so virulently detrimental to conservative
ideals.
One of the primary arguments, in the NRO editorial as always, is that gay marriage is bad “for the children.” Aside from the political axiom that anyone who claims something must be done “for the children” is to be feared, this position has a couple of obvious flaws. In the first place, not allheterosexual couples have children. Whether because of infertility, age, or simple lack of interest, plenty of heterosexuals marry with no intention of carrying out what the NRO editors now assert is the central purpose of marriage. While the editorialists acknowledge this fact, they attempt to gloss over it by claiming that such marriages at least meet the “behavioral conditions” of a marriage that could produce children, even if both parties are over seventy and self-evidently beyond any possible hope of reproduction. Perhaps this makes sense to some people, but it strikes me asa rather desperate reach.
The other problem is that the assumption that gay marriages would not involve children is clearly untrue. Whether through artificial insemination, adoption, or gaining custody of children from previousmarriages, plenty of gay couples do have children. The NRO editors would almost certainly argue that they oppose allowing lesbians to use sperm banks, gay adoptions, and granting gay parents child custody, but this is irrelevant. There is no realistic chance that these practices will all be banned throughout the nation, and even if all were made illegal tomorrow, there would still be children living with gay couples, and it would hardly be in the best interests of these children to rip them away from the onlyparents they may remember. Gay couples with childen are not going to disappear. If it is true that “the ideal setting for the rearing of children” is the marriage of their parents - and I agree that it is - then gay couples who are raising children ought to be allowed to marry.
But what of gay couples without children? Well for that matter, what of heterosexual couples without children? Deciding that child-rearing is the main purpose of marriage is a dangerous trap, for if the sole point of getting married is to provide a suitable environment for rearing children, then perhaps even heterosexual couples should not bother getting married until the woman gets pregnant.
There probably are people who think this is a perfectly sensible idea, but I sincerely doubt that any of them would call themselves conservatives. The repugnance many people would feel at the notion of routinely shacking up until first pregancy is a clear indication that marriage is indeed about more than children. A large part of this significance is sexual morality, the traditional idea that moral persons should refrain from sex outside of marriage. This of course can just as well be viewed as a reason why it would be more moral for monogamous gay couples to have the option of legitimizing their unions through marriage. But the other, much less acknowledged, issue is that marriage is not merely a contract to safeguard the well being of children. It is also a means of promoting the welfare of the couple themselves.
There has been plenty of research, including that by NRO contributor Maggie Gallagher, to demonstrate that married people are both happier and healthier than singles. Having a partner who is pledged to stand by you to share whatever joys or misfortunes life may bring is something most people find immensely valuable. This value extends to society as a whole. The fact that many people have spouses who help to support them financially or care for them when they are sick clearly reduces the burden on our welfare systems. Finally, marriage has not only material benefits, but spiritual ones as well. The act of making and maintaining such a deep commitment to another human being ideally helps develop responsibility, caring, and understanding. None of these benefits are dependent upon the birth of children.
Marriage is ultimately about the deeply conservative notion that people should voluntarily take responsibility for those they care most deeply about, in a manner that can be officially recognized by the state. That gay as well as straight couples now want to assume this profoundly important responsibility should be a cause for gladness, not despair.
One of the primary arguments, in the NRO editorial as always, is that gay marriage is bad “for the children.” Aside from the political axiom that anyone who claims something must be done “for the children” is to be feared, this position has a couple of obvious flaws. In the first place, not allheterosexual couples have children. Whether because of infertility, age, or simple lack of interest, plenty of heterosexuals marry with no intention of carrying out what the NRO editors now assert is the central purpose of marriage. While the editorialists acknowledge this fact, they attempt to gloss over it by claiming that such marriages at least meet the “behavioral conditions” of a marriage that could produce children, even if both parties are over seventy and self-evidently beyond any possible hope of reproduction. Perhaps this makes sense to some people, but it strikes me asa rather desperate reach.
The other problem is that the assumption that gay marriages would not involve children is clearly untrue. Whether through artificial insemination, adoption, or gaining custody of children from previousmarriages, plenty of gay couples do have children. The NRO editors would almost certainly argue that they oppose allowing lesbians to use sperm banks, gay adoptions, and granting gay parents child custody, but this is irrelevant. There is no realistic chance that these practices will all be banned throughout the nation, and even if all were made illegal tomorrow, there would still be children living with gay couples, and it would hardly be in the best interests of these children to rip them away from the onlyparents they may remember. Gay couples with childen are not going to disappear. If it is true that “the ideal setting for the rearing of children” is the marriage of their parents - and I agree that it is - then gay couples who are raising children ought to be allowed to marry.
But what of gay couples without children? Well for that matter, what of heterosexual couples without children? Deciding that child-rearing is the main purpose of marriage is a dangerous trap, for if the sole point of getting married is to provide a suitable environment for rearing children, then perhaps even heterosexual couples should not bother getting married until the woman gets pregnant.
There probably are people who think this is a perfectly sensible idea, but I sincerely doubt that any of them would call themselves conservatives. The repugnance many people would feel at the notion of routinely shacking up until first pregancy is a clear indication that marriage is indeed about more than children. A large part of this significance is sexual morality, the traditional idea that moral persons should refrain from sex outside of marriage. This of course can just as well be viewed as a reason why it would be more moral for monogamous gay couples to have the option of legitimizing their unions through marriage. But the other, much less acknowledged, issue is that marriage is not merely a contract to safeguard the well being of children. It is also a means of promoting the welfare of the couple themselves.
There has been plenty of research, including that by NRO contributor Maggie Gallagher, to demonstrate that married people are both happier and healthier than singles. Having a partner who is pledged to stand by you to share whatever joys or misfortunes life may bring is something most people find immensely valuable. This value extends to society as a whole. The fact that many people have spouses who help to support them financially or care for them when they are sick clearly reduces the burden on our welfare systems. Finally, marriage has not only material benefits, but spiritual ones as well. The act of making and maintaining such a deep commitment to another human being ideally helps develop responsibility, caring, and understanding. None of these benefits are dependent upon the birth of children.
Marriage is ultimately about the deeply conservative notion that people should voluntarily take responsibility for those they care most deeply about, in a manner that can be officially recognized by the state. That gay as well as straight couples now want to assume this profoundly important responsibility should be a cause for gladness, not despair.
Posted: Sun - July 27, 2003 at 08:55 PM
Quick Links
Select a Topic
Stories This Month
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Past Stories
XML/RSS Feed
Interesting Reads
BeoBlog
Bear Left On Unnamed Road
U.S.S. Clueless
Bear Left On Unnamed Road
U.S.S. Clueless
Visitors
Test
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 16, 2003 06:43 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Nov 16, 2003 06:43 PM