On the need to reframe discussion of the matrimonial institution.
We would-be defenders of marriage, those of us who want to keep the definition of marriage as it is, have a major problem. We need to revise our rhetoric. We are too negative. We should phrase our arguments in positive terms. Here’s what I mean.
Gay marriage is not justified by a simple reference to equality, as Steven Den Beste says. (*) Equality requires like things to be treated alike. The gay marriage debate is over whether same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are fundamentally alike. Proponents of gay marriage fall into the logical trap of begging the question. Den Beste unhorses Andrew Sullivan with dogged, logical insistence that equality is a conclusion, not the starting assumption. Den Beste backs gay marriage on liberty grounds. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Den Beste has nothing to say on whether incest or polygamy should be allowed on grounds of adult consent.
One Fine Jay budges a little on gay marriage. (†) He still supports it, but only on liberty grounds, thanks to Den Beste’s derailing of the equality argument.
OF Jay is particularly concerned with the rumor that the Marriage Protection Act will take something away from the Constitution. He and others should know that that is not true. The Marriage Protection Act would indeed produce a constitutional issue not yet answered by the Supreme Court. The question would be whether Congress has the power to selectively limit appellate review of cases under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. (‡) Legal scholars are mixed in their opinions on this subject. As this specific question has never been addressed by the Supreme Court before, supporters of the Marriage Protection Act cannot be accused of tinkering with the Constitution. We are cautiously exploring the limits, that’s all.
American Politik (§), Den Beste, and OF Jay are greatly concerned with liberty. They support gay marriage on that ground. Their points are made passionately and elegantly.
Yet, there are compelling reasons why we should keep the existing form of marriage as the only form of marriage.
Let’s start with the value of marriage as it exists today: a man and a woman. The non-partisan Institute for American Values has produced an important document listing 21 separate reasons why marriage matters. These reasons are backed up by study upon study, veritable mounds of social scientific research. The document is a readable summary. (**)
Most of the reasons tie in to children. Children who grow up in families with both of their biological parents present, living together, and married, do better on average than children who do not have that advantage. To list a few:
- they have better relationships with their fathers;
- they are less likely when grown to be divorced or become unwed parents themselves;
- they are less likely to be impoverished;
- they are at lower risk of school failure;
- they have better health;
- they have lower rates of substance and alcohol abuse;
- they are at lower risk of suicide; they are less likely to become the victims of child abuse;
- and they have lower rates of mental illness and psychological disorders.
These are the social scientific conclusions summarized by the Institute of American Values, above. Based on data from Europe, children raised in gay households with two adults have the same disadvantages as children who grow up in single parent or divorced homes.
Yes, some single parents do a good job. Yes, some heterosexual, married parents abuse their children. Those are cases that demand our attention, but they are the exceptions to the rule.
The general rule is that children do better on average when they grow up in households with both natural parents present, living together, and married.
Thus, it is not as Kathy Kinsley says, that we need gay marriage to protect children. (††) To most help children, to give them the most advantages, children would be raised by their married mother and father.
I have no objection to seeing the liberty of adults fulfilled That is not the real issue, though. The real issue is how to uphold the best possible family structure we can for children who grow up in the United States. Every single child deserves the best situation possible growing up.
We must institutionalize only the family structure that is most optimal for children. Every other structure, from cohabitation to single parenthood to two gay people living together raising children to adoption and to others should be respected for what they are, but only the family structure of classical marriage should be an institution.
For every child, we seek to give them the best of all possible situations. For some children, single parenthood, adoption, or foster parenthood is the best option. Usually, however, children can be with their married mother and father. We should encourage fathers and mothers to get married and stay married to one another, even if it means reforming our family laws a bit. It’s critical that, if at all possible, children be raised by their married father and mother who live together.
This critical need to give children every advantage outweighs many other needs, including some of the liberty interests of adults. This critical need justifies keeping classical marriage as the definition of the institution of matrimony.
Only the family structure that is best for kids ought to be institutionalized into our law and culture. That family structure is marriage, the institution as we have understood it for eons: the lovely coupling of biologically complementary opposites, a man and a woman, who have among their chosen duties the duty to care for any children they may be blessed to have.
Every child deserves the best, and it is to give every child the best that we ought to continue to maintain the matrimony of a man and a woman as the institution we recognize as marriage.
Note: I have attempted to rephrase the argument to uphold the family structure in entirely positive terms. I have tried to avoid using phrases like “stopping gay marriage” and “protecting kids” here. Those are negative terms. While I have used them before, I think to reach the widest possible audience, and to be true to our ideals, we should cease from futher use of negative phrases. Our argument should be made entirely in positive terms.
I was partially inspired by the web log Insignificant Thoughts because there my fellow web logger did such an excellent job of pointing out how gay marriage would not harm marriage. (‡‡) That is very true, and I did not realize it before. Gay marriage would not harm marriage. The only way marriage will be harmed is if those who care about the family structure abandon it. That decision is made on multiple levels, from politics and public affairs to the personal level. Ultimately, however, it is a single decision for each person to make. I was also inspired to abandon negative language by Dwight at his excellent A Religious Liberal Blog (§§), which I recommend even though I am in disagreement with some of it.
Update: 26 July 2004. A few minor changes in wording.
July 24th, 2004 at 20:13
Andrew, I see that your thoughts on gay marriage have evolved too. In the past you have treated the issue with a disdain that treats that particular family setup as if it will cause the sky to fall, which is why, despite reading your posts on the subject, I have refused to comment previously. It made my blood boil.
I see your point, in that you would like marriage to be promotoed as the premier way to form families. I agree, although I would never encourage a married couple that is estranged either through abuse or discarding of commitment to continue in their setup “for the children.” The lie of a family that children live under in such a situation can sometimes be even worse for them. However, it cannot be denied that gay people want to form families too, and to afford upon them the same protections for their children and their estates that current married couples have. I will not encourage a gay man or a lesbian to marry one of the opposite sex and have children “for the good” of the children that they will be raising. Truth to one’s self is important, and if a parent is living a lie, a child will know, as he grows, even though it is a lie borne of altruistic sacrifice.
Finally, the Marriage Protection Act, if I am not mistaken, has declared itself immune from judicial review, not just DOMA, which ammends it to be so. The Supreme Court will have no say on the consitutionality of its judicial imperviousness because, if passed, it is out of the hands of the Supreme Court. I hate to invoke the slippery slope in this case, but replace “gay marriage” with any legislative issue and you’ll see where I am coming from.
July 24th, 2004 at 20:39
Treating it as catastrophic was not my intention, although I definitely see how you and others have seen it that way. I endeavor to remedy the perception and the reality.
As for the Marriage Protection Act, the Supreme Court could still rule that it was unconstitutional, even though the law says it can’t do that. That would definitely lead to a constitutional crisis, of course. In fairness, in the opinion of those of us who wish to uphold classical marriage as the exclusive matrimonial form, we are in a painful constitutional crisis already because of the gay marriage court decisions. So we feel we are in a bind.
Yours are excellent thoughts to ponder.
July 24th, 2004 at 21:03
Like it or not, things have already changed. How do you suggest we force the mother and father to marry, or stay married? Banning a union of two persons based on whether one or both have innies or outies would not have any effect on that. Even if a gay couple is not the “optimum”, wouldn’t it be better than nothing?
Note that I’m adopted. I would far rather have been brought up by one parent that was mine and another of the same sex, than to have been rejected at birth and never allowed to know why. And I’m not the only adoptee to feel that way, so quit worshipping that option right now. The ‘children’ of adoption have never been consulted. Try asking some time, you might be surprised to find out we don’t all buy into the ‘just be grateful’ BS.
July 24th, 2004 at 22:20
Fathers and mothers should not be forced to marry. They should be encouraged to enter into the noble institution of marriage, and any children they have would best be protected (in most cases) if they were to be married and stay married.
Back in college I had a friend who was adopted. She was in every respect a remarkable, wonderful human being. One thing that troubled her—and it really troubled her—was her being adopted and not having received any explanation why. That’s why I am a bit skeptical of adoption, even though it must be recognized that some children are tremendously helped by it.
I would far rather have been brought up by one parent that was mine and another of the same sex, than to have been rejected at birth and never allowed to know why.
That is already possible without gay marriage.
The only family structure that should be an institution is the matrimonial bond between a man and a woman. Even as many children do end up in other arrangements, we must do everything we can for the sake of children to encourage and facilitate fathers and mothers to be married whenever possible.
July 25th, 2004 at 20:45
So, basically what you are saying is that if my (non-biological) parents consist of two outies or two innies, you would deny me (the child) the protections I would have from the state if my (non-biological) parents consisted of one innie and one outie?
July 26th, 2004 at 08:10
Good show, Andrew.
If I was writing a post about why Atheists should support Christianity, it would be because following Christian-based morality is “optimal”.
There is a question about when should sub-optimal be illegal. There is a different question about when, if ever, sub-optimal should be elevated as a social institution to be “equal” with optimal — the only way they can be equal is if the optimal is reduced.
No-fault divorce is prolly worse for marriage the institution than is gay marriage.
Kathy K’s problems with adoption are an example of, inevitable, sub-optimality. Despite her knowing that her adopted parents wanted her, and even chose her, she is still unsatisfied about being adopted (instead of being aborted? instead of living with single mother?)
Unfortunately, I don’t exactly understand what she’s trying to say; some questions that are prolly rhetorical that I actually don’t know her expected answers to. And then an accusation of Andrew denying some state protections to adopted children — I don’t understand what protections.
I’m really interested in this, because I far prefer women to choose to give their babies up for adoption, rather than aborting them. If that was Kathy’s bio-mother’s reason, I’m wondering if Kathy would be happier knowing it?
July 26th, 2004 at 09:56
Kathy, I am a terrible bore when it comes to terminology. I am a devout literalist. While others may not share my esteem of the literal meanings of words, and I accept that they do not, I still object to our society’s contemporary tendency towards Orwellian Newspeak.
In the process of avoiding what may eventually become Newspeak, I am resolute in maintaining the meaning of the word “parent.”
Biological parents are “parents.” No one else is a parent in the literal sense of the word.
Adoptive parents and foster parents and others do something that our society highly values, and so we honor them by calling them “parents” even though they are not the biological parents. The granting of this honorific is a special rule that is justified because of the specially valuable service they render to the children in question, and to our society in general. Furthermore, every child deserves to be raised by his two parents, and so when the biological parents are not raising the child for whatever reason, we bestow upon the child’s caretakers the title parent in hopes that the child will be seen as he is, a normal child, and not be stigmatized.
Those special rules do not change the biological fact that only the biological parents are parents in the literal sense.
Thus, to answer your question as it is literally put, a child can have only a mother and a father, and no other parents. Discrimination based on type of belly button is not insidious or greatly harmful today. Both innies and outies can be either male or female.
To answer the non-literal aspect of your question, only classical marriage should be recognized as matrimony because the vast majority of children do better when raised by their married (biological) parents. All other children face special difficulties that require the expenditure of enormous societal resources. It is best to keep the percentage as high as possible of children raised by their parents living together in classical marriage. That means encouraging classical marriage, and not encouraging any alternative to classical marriage, except in the rare cases of abuse, etc.
(Classical marriage = the marriage of one woman and one man.)
October 13th, 2004 at 16:19
F*** the family structure. The world is changing. And not necessarily for the worse, despite what you may think. However, I do commend you on being educated before voicing your opinions. But homosexuals deserve to have the right to marry whomever they please. Heterosexuals can. I don’t see the difference. Prohibiting homosexuals to have a full, legal marriage is an infringement upon the rights of human beings.
“If we let gays and lesbians have civil rights, then everyone will want them!”