Monogamania: Then and Now
Over at the Amercian Scene, Conor Friedersdorf penned a post challenging Rod Dreher on the idea that allowing same-sex couples to marry represents a “radical change”. I liked the post itself and, in fact, thought that the comments that followed were pretty interesting reading and really added to the original ideas posted by Conor. One comment that particularly caught my eye was Joe Carter’s weighing in on the issue with an argument that is standard fare for him on this topic,
It’s a radical change even from your own definition, which includes “and commit to do so monogamously.” As has been understood for decades, the homosexual (at least gay male) definition of monogamy does not entail sexual exclusivity. That this fact is dismissed or swept under the rug is not surprising since it would make the cause of SSM even more difficult to achieve. But it’s been well established and used to be the justifying reason why gays weren’t interested in marriage.
If this is an important component of your definition then you need to ask what happens when the majority of gay men refuse to include this in their own definition of “marriage.”
Despite the fact that I disagree with Joe wholeheartedly on this issue, I respect him a great deal and consider Joe to be an opponent of marriage equality who is worth engaging insofar as doing so generally leaves me feeling like I’ve learned a bit more and understand the topic at hand a bit better. As mentioned, I’ve seen Joe make the above argument on numerous different occasions and I don’t doubt that he has data to back up his assertions (Joe, in my experience, is a responsible writer in that way). But, I must admit, I myself have never sought out such data, so last night I decided to do so.
What I found has some bearing, I believe, on the veracity of Joe’s argument.
As noted by Karen Shrock in the Scientific American’s 60 Second Science blog, a group of psychologists from the Alliant International University in San Francisco presented a study they had coordinated on rates of monogamy amongst heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, comparing results from 1975 and 2000 at the American Psychological Association’s 2009 Convention. Summarizing the study (a copy of which I have been unable to locate to date), Shrock notes,
The overall result was unambiguous—monogamy rates have skyrocketed. But the groups still show dramatic differences in how often they cheat or have sex outside of their primary relationship. Around 82 percent of gay men reported extra-partnership sex in 1975, whereas 59 percent did in 2000—a significant decrease, but still that later rate is more than four times higher than comparable rates found among straight men (14.7), straight women (13.5) and lesbians (8.2). Those groups’ rates are down from percentages in the mid-twenties in 1975.
On the face of it, that finding generally supports Joe’s point: gay males are a great deal more likely to engage in sexually non-exclusive relationships. That points remains true both historically, in terms of the 1975 numbers, and more recently, in terms of the 2000 numbers. However, what the numbers also show is that there is a substantial downward trend in attitudes towards extra-marital/extra-partnership encounters and while the rates for such encounters remain higher amongst gay males as compared to other groups, the rates for gay males have declined in a comparable fashion to the declines noted for the other groups, at least as far as this study reveals.
What I think it is also fair to suggest from those numbers, though, is that gay males aren’t fighting against the downward trend in attitudes about infidelity, though they have more ground to make up and so their decreases leave them disparate in terms of the attitudes demonstrated by the other groups. Of course, one might suggest, as the authors of the study did, that gay males are simply reacting to the same kinds of health risks that most other groups are in terms infidelity (HIV and other STDs). In short, the decrease is broadly cultural, but not particularly cultural to gay males and do not represent a normative shift in that particular culture.
And that would probably be true, but there was another snippet that also caught my eye,
And the percentage of couples who are decidedly closed to sex outside the relationship—they discussed extra-partnership sex and decided that “under no circumstances is it alright”—just about doubled in every group (from around 43 percent in 1975 to around 80 percent in 2000) except in gay men, among whom it more than tripled (13 to 44 percent).
What those numbers tell me is that there has been a shift in the recorded attitudes of gay males on the specific topic of extra-marital/extra-partnership sexual encounters that has occurred at a rate that surpasses what these psychologists recorded for all other groups, which, I think, may well indicate a normative change on this particular topic in the specific culture of gay males.
Now, at the end of the day, I’m not purporting to have proven anything conclusively and will likely continue looking into the issue to find more numbers and more data to cross reference the linked/quoted against. But if my intuitions are right and these numbers are accurate (and I have no reason to believe that they are not), then I think this phenomenon represents a rhetorically significant chink in the armor of Joe’s argument and I would be curious to hear what Joe’s response would be.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=697993c3-5d7f-4025-a019-2bf070e6dac9)
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- But certainly we can't al...
- Or does being held in cap...
- All this makes sense to m...
- If my government is going...
- Pardon. In the Sarah Pali...
- The emphasis is on "claim...
- I don't have any particul...
- Sarah Palin!Seriously. On...
- "When in actual fact, we ...
- Sorry, CA has proven time...
-
69 comments
How are the monogamy rates in the countries that have adopted gay marriage?
If legal marriage results in more monogamy than places that don’t have legal marriage, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise to anyone but hardcore libertarians who don’t believe in culture/society as much more than useful fictions.
What I think happens is that gay/straight people interested in many couplings would not choose to get married, while those that want monogamy would choose to do so. Joe’s point doesn’t seem to have that much of a point.
Cascadian
November 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Isn’t this the flip side of the religious getting married for sex? If the foundation of ones relationship is sexual exclusivity, how strong can the relationship or the persons involved in it actually be?
One thing I wonder about Joe’s argument is whether it confuses cause and effect. If there is no possibility of a permanently-binding commitment along the lines of marriage or maybe even civil unions, monogamy would seem drastically less appealing. Like, if you’re in a serious relationship that has at least the potential to result in a long-term formal commitment like marriage, you’re going to be less likely to cheat on the other person by probably orders of magnitude simply because you’re not willing to give up that possibility so easily. On the other hand, if there is not only nothing to bind you but you also are legally prohibited from choosing to enter into a binding marriage contract, then your incentive to remain loyal seems more likely to be limited to simply how you feel about your partner at a given moment. The worst consequence of being disloyal is that you find a new partner, who, by definition, you’ve already found; but when there is at least the potential for something more, then the consequence of being disloyal is that you destroy any possibility of entering into that something more with your current partner in exchange for a complete shot-in-the-dark that would, in any event, likely take far longer to result in any kind of commitment (since it would mean starting over from scratch).
E.D. Kain
November 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Right – very good point. And then, too, there’s the children to factor in. If you have kids or are planning to have kids that should reduce your chances at infidelity. If gay people could adopt and raise families they’d be much less likely to cheat I would think (and hope.)
Interesting post. I first really understood the arguments that “gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage” when I read a book on the history of AIDS in for a history class, and all the gay people interviewed in epidemiology studies had 100+ partners per year and their culture openly regarded marriage as a repressive and outdated institution. What would anyone expect a person used to hearing about homosexuality in that contect to think when they heard gay people were saying they wanted marriage rights?
I think the Sullivan-ization of gay rights has been a big step forward for the chances of gay marriage. I had no idea the proportion of cheating/”open relationships” was still so much higher than among straight couples, though.
Exactly.
Were it illegal for heterosexuals to get married, does anyone believe that attitudes about monogamy would be the same as they are now?
“Were it illegal for heterosexuals to get married, does anyone believe that attitudes about monogamy would be the same as they are now?”
I guess it depends on the definition of “get married.” More specifically, who gets to decide who’s “married”? As it stands right now, there are many churches that will marry a same-sex couple. is this the endorsement you are seeking? Or is it the endorsement of the state? Because in my mind, it’s the former endorsement that acts as a break on things like infidelity. The latter seems more like a bookkeeping measure (albeit a very important one, as marriage comes with some serious bookkeeping advantages.)
Am I less likely to cheat on my wife because my pastor says not to? Yeah. Sure. Am I less likely to cheat on my wife because the clerk of courts says not to? The same clerk of courts who promises to give me access to no fault divorce? Nah.
Which brings us to greginak’s comment:
“What I think happens is that gay/straight people interested in many couplings would not choose to get married, while those that want monogamy would choose to do so.”
Not sure this is true. Because, as mentioned, marriage comes with many bookkeeping advantages. I know some hetero married couples who “swing,” and others who are “open” in other ways. I see no reason to think gay couples would be different. That is, I suspect they are smart, too, and will take advantage of the accounting and other advantages of marriage, even if the monogamy thing is less appealing.
North
November 9th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
So then gay couples should be barred from the “bookkeeping measures” because they may cheat on it like straights do? Doesn’t strike me as a ringing slogan to rally the troops with.
Scott,
Before I respond to the substance of your post, let me make a couple of preferatory remarks. First, I must say that this is yet another example of the way that you and the LoOG have set a high standard for how to carry out discussions on the Internet. You deserve a lot of credit for being unfailingly civil and fair.
Second, I want to provide some context for the comments that will follow since it’s easy to misunderstand my position (and easy for me to misrepresent my own claims).
I believe that there is an objective moral order and that homosexual behavior (as oppossed to a homosexual disposition or orientation) violates the dictates of the natural law. (That is a complex argument so I’ll merely throw it out as an assertion, rather than as something I can defend in the space of a comment.) Under this view, sexuality is what queer theory describes as “heteronormative”—that the expectations, demands, and constraints produced when heterosexuality are taken as normative within a society.
I actually agree with the idea that when heterosexuality is considered normative that it brings with it a bundle of related themes and concepts that work as a “package deal.” Indeed, there is an even more radical notion that queer theorists and I would agree: If you reject heterosexuality as normative for society, then there is no need to accept all of the heteronormative baggage that comes with it.
For example, sexual exclusivity is normative for heterosexual relationships (at least under a natural law theory). But there is no reason why we have to assume that it is normative for homosexual relationships. In fact, I think it is not. I think if we accept that homosexual behavior is “natural” then we should find that sexual exclusivity among gay men is unnatural. In other words, if homosexual behavior is morally neutral then gay men having multiple sexual partners should also be morally neutral since there is no biological reason (and no natural law reason since that was already thrown out) for such an expectation.
People often misunderstood me on this point. They assume that my problem is that I think gay men failing to be monogamous is a moral failing. That is not the case at all. I think that engaging in homosexual sex is a moral failing but that sexual promiscuity is a “natural” outgrowth of gay male sexual behavior. The natural inclination of almost all gay men (as evidenced by history and backed up by empirical data) is to reject the heteronormative concept of sexual monogamy.
Whether you agree with me (and the queer theorists) I would contend that this position is more respectful of gay men than assuming that they are in every way similar to heterosexuals and that they should be forced to accept heterosexual norms.
As for the study you cite, I think it is very interesting, though perhaps not all that surprising. In the absence of data to examine, I would guess that two factors play a role in the shift:
(1) Gay men are living longer – When I first started looking into the data on this subject (in the late ’80s) I was shocked and appalled by the pre-AIDS era mortality rate for gay men. I can’t remember the exact numbers but I recall that many gay men died before reaching the age of fifty. Fortunately, that is changing and gay men are living much longer. Because of this, they are living to ages in which comfortable compaionship is more important in a relationship than sexual adventurism. I suspect that much of the shift in attitude is in this cohort.
(2) Culture is forcing them to accept heteronormative concepts — One of the things that I find interesting when people like my friend Conor make their cases for gay marriage is that they are willing to accept homosexuals as long as their behavior largely mirrors the heterosexual culture. The “acceptance” of homosexuality within the mainstream has largely come with the condition that gay men reject all aspects of “queer culture.”
Now people like Conor have the best of intentions. By bringing gay men into the heteronormative circle they believe we can condition them to reject all that “queer stuff.” He thinks that culture would and should shape their attitudes toward monogamy, further bringing them into the mainstrem. Obviously, when this is the attitude that is considered “gay-friendly”, what choice do gay men have but to surrender ot the forces of heteronormative conformity?
But back to the question of how all of this fits into my larger argument. I would say that if the (heterosexual) public were aware of the predominant view of monogamy within the subculture of gay men, they would be less likely to accept same-sex marriage—and for good reason. It is only be being blissfully unaware gay attitudes about monogamy or by being willing to de-queer gay men that the advocates of SSM are advancing the cause.
The problem with this (other than being as harmful as keeping people in the closet) is that while some people like Andrew Sullivan are willing to change their minds about monogamy now, there is no reason to believe that the change is longterm. As a politically expedient move, gay men may be willing to adopt heteronormative ideals. But why should they be forced to? If they decide that monomamy is not an important component of their marrages, then why should anyone tell them differently? Once the laws have been changed, they will simply resort to what is “natural.”
And that is the crux of the problem. This effect will spill over into all of culture and affect everyone’s views of sexuality, monogamy, and marriage. If gay men do not have to be shackled by the bonds of heteronormativity, why should heterosexuals? We are already seeing this playing out in culture. Take, for example, Sex and the City. As Marge Simpson said, it’s a show “about four women acting like gay men.” Yet it has become a model for how single women should really behave.
The problem, of course, is that the consequences of sex have always been borne on women in a way that they have not been on men. Sure, with contraceptive, abortion, and psychoanalysis, they can avoid the physical and psychological consequences of acting like gay men. But what will be the larger impact on society?
North
November 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
It’s an interesting arguement Joe. A point though:
“The natural inclination of almost all gay men (as evidenced by history and backed up by empirical data) is to reject the heteronormative concept of sexual monogamy. ”
I don’t know if I agree here. Not necessarily on the gay part but more on the idea that it doesn’t appear to work for men at all, gay or straight. I’d say the natural inclination of almost all men (as evidenced by history and backed up by empirical data) is to reject the heteronormative concept of sexual monogamy.
Setting that aside though, I’m curious, what is the positive component of your position? If not SSM then what?
North
November 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Oh and before I forget. Your position completely ignores all lesbians who are in general more monogamous and more faithful than even heterosexuals.
Jaybird
November 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Joe, I appreciate this essay and did my best to read it in the spirit in which you offered it. I hope that you’ll do the same for my own.
I’m going to talk about Prohibition for a little while.
The Progressives, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the world would be a better place without alcohol consumption. What better way to eliminate alcohol consumption than a Constitutional Amendment? Well, the police and feds and Eliot Ness and those guys all did their best to make sure that the delinquent drinkers would be arrested and would pay their debt to society.
A lot of things happened because of this. For one, people who wanted a drink (not just the Irish, either!) suddenly found themselves in a pickle. They could either not drink (abstinence!) or… well, they had to go to the seedy part of town. Once there, they had to deal with people who were pretty seedy themselves. Criminal, even. These people who, you’d think, were otherwise upstanding and normal people were suddenly hanging out in the seedy part of town hanging with criminals and engaging in some pretty nasty activity.
These people, due to their urges, had to get what they wanted on the black market. They were dealing with criminals, they were engaging in self-destructive behavior (hey, if you don’t know that your source is going to have stuff next week, you may as well binge tonight when you know he has stuff, right?), and pretty much made their own lives a lot more miserable than they otherwise had to be.
If they had a natural outlet for their desires, they could well have kept it to a nice boring vanilla stout in the parlor, listening to the Victrola with their life partner, discussing the happenings of the day like normal people… but there was no natural outlet. They had to skulk around in dark alleys with people who were quite used to doing things that, let’s face it, aren’t appropriate for description on a family-friendly website. (Indeed, not just the Irish were doing this either.)
Thank goodness that Prohibition was repealed!
Let’s do some Elseworlds games, however, and ask about the universe in which Prohibition was *NOT* repealed. It’s now decades later and you and I are good tea-totalling people.
Could you see someone give an argument in good faith that we still shouldn’t repeal the 18th because, well, alcoholics aren’t like us. They drink in binges, they drink destructively, there is no reason to believe that they’d be able to operate in polite society if we had liquor stores in the neighborhood, why should we believe that these gin-soaked wiskey-addled rummies would content themselves with a vanilla stout in the parlor when, for decades, they have been going to the seedy part of town playing tap tap tapping games on seedy doors in seedy alleyways?
It’s just not natural, you could see this person concluding.
Having explored this thought experiment, could you see someone making that argument in this alternate universe?
Well, now I’m going to change the subject and talk about gay marriage.
The behavior you describe as being “natural” to homosexuals strikes me as missing a major dynamic: It’s natural behavior for people operating in a black market. If there is no respectable place for you to go to get that which you seek, well… you’re going to be in a seedy alleyway tap tap tapping on a seedy door.
The argument that gay marriage would allow the equivalent of a liquor store on the corner is one that I’d like to see you address. The argument that there are a lot of folks out there who would content themselves with a boring vanilla life in the parlor is one that you’re ignoring because you see the behavior in the black market as the “normative” one… when, at the same time, you argue against repeal.
Can you address this?
North
November 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Great stuff Jay.
Jaybird
November 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Thanks, by the way.
Cascadian
November 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
If this were true wouldn’t we expect to find more sexual transgressions in more repressed places? Wouldn’t the Bible belt in practice be where there was the most infidelity and divorce?
Jaybird
November 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Part of that *MAY* be a function of more promises being made therefore more promises being broken.
Compare “just shack up for 3 years then break up and get married to someone else” to “get married to someone for 3 years, get divorced, then get married to someone else”.
(I’ve had friends do the latter, I’ve had friends do the former. The latter is much, much more stressful on bystanders, for the record.)
Katherine
November 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
It’s an interesting argument, but it seems like the analogy would be more relevant if homosexuality were illegal. But it isn’t – unlike the man who can’t just have a vanilla stout in the parlour because it’s illegal, for quite some time there hasn’t been any law prevented gay relationships. If two gay people wanted to form a monogamous relationship it wasn’t recognized by law, but it wasn’t banned either.
Jaybird
November 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
How about a point in time where homosexuality was effectively illegal?
It was considered a mental illness until 1973. (To be perfectly honest, if they were defining homosexuality as the black market Larry Craig/Ted Haggard behavior, it would make sense to define it as such… Larry Craig, for example, strikes me as crazy… not because of the gay thing but because of the black market behavior).
After it was declassified, we’ve got an entire generation of homosexuals who had been socialized to homosexuality in an exceptionally perverse way.
That needed to be wrung out of the system. Stuff like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard demonstrate that it hasn’t yet.
Anyway, once gay becomes close enough to normal, I reckon we’ll see mating rituals arise somewhat organically and everybody will have the opportunity to learn that one wouldn’t be sobbing right now if one had kept it to second base. Just like the hetero kids got to learn.
North
November 10th, 2009 at 5:46 am
Actually K, prior to the 70’s it pretty much was. You could have your ass arrested and chemically sterilized in the cities (See Turing) or your employment and housing taken away. In the country you were liable to end up dead.
E.D. Kain
November 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Quite brilliant, Jaybird.
E.D. Kain
November 9th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Also – Joe:
Thanks!
Not to pick nits, but doesn’t Carter’s argument logically lead to banning non-lesbian marriages because their non-monogamy rates are nearly half those of hetero couples?
Trizzlor,
My argument is not that the refusal to be monogamous is the reason we should reject same-sex marriage as a legal construct (though it may be a cultural reason we should do so).
The reason for rejecting SSM, in a nutshell, is that it is at its core a heterosexual institution (and comes with all the heteronormative bag of goodies). Redefining it to include homosexual relationships is essentially just redefining away the word to mean something completely different than what the institution has always been. If we redefined the legal meanings of the terms “parent” and “child” to include your relationship with your best friend, it wouldn’t do much but to confuse the real meaning of the terms.
Cascadian
November 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
It seems very much to me that you’re taking an American Puritan concept of marriage and applying it to history and all het cultures which obviously don’t fit your mold. Monogamy is not the norm and as North points out doesn’t seem overly endorsed by men of any orientation even if for some it is kept to the lust of the heart.
Cascadian
November 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
What’s the real purpose of the internet?
Jaybird
November 9th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
As far as I can tell, it’s to distribute pictures of people consumating.
Cascadian
November 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
The Vegas wedding has finally been undersold.
Jaybird
November 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Allow me to demonstrate massive arrogance by copying and pasting a comment I wrote in another thread as a response to this comment without editing it or anything.
Ahem.
The problem with this is that marriage has already been redefined by heterosexuals with the advent of 99.44% effective birth control.
Marriage was, once upon a time, a covenant between two people who were assumed to be bonded with the purpose of having kids. If two people did not have kids, the assumption was either that one of them was barren or that they had separate bedrooms (for whatever reason). Those were the assumptions. There weren’t no third way.
With the advent of effective birth control, marriage transformed from “the foundation of the family” to “a contract between two people who loved each other”.
Once it became the latter, it wasn’t *THAT* hard to get to the whole “I’m not in love anymore, I’m not happy, I want a divorce” thing rolling. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, this *TOTALLY* came to a head. It went from having one friend who had divorced parents to, like, friggin’ everybody having parents who got divorced.
It seemed like I had more friends with divorced parents than friends without from around 1987 to 1990.
Hell, my generation is the one that engineered the term “starter marriage”. First marriage, no kids, whoops, didn’t work out, get divorced, no harm no foul. Hey, at least they didn’t have kids. I’ve got a handful of friends who had one of those.
If marriage is nothing more than a social contract that two people who are in love and want a life partnership together (and if they have kids, great!), then it’s something that, why the hell not?, gays ought to have access to.
If the argument is that marriage oughtn’t be redefined… well, that’s something that you need to take up with the birth control people.
Rufus
November 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Well, massive arrogance aside, you make good points here. Actually, going back a bit earlier, it’s hard to imagine any change to the institution of marriage that could be bigger than when young people started selecting who they wanted to marry instead of their parents doing so. After that, everything has been small beer.
Having said that, the sudden and historically unprecedented spike in divorce rates that you mention definitely wasn’t small beer. An interesting film from that time is Hardcore with George C. Scott. He’s a small town conservative whose daughter runs off to be in porno films. What I love about the film is that we find out at the end that her reason for doing this was that her parents got divorced! This was 1977, and it was still a really shocking thing that America had the highest divorce rate in human history. Now, I hear people talk about it like it’s some sort of natural law- hey, 50% of marriages just don’t work out.
Actually, I got married in Canada, and by total coincidence on the same week that same sex marriage became legal in this country. I was absolutely struck by the fact that the older gay couples my wife and I know completely understood our desire to spend our lives together; while many of the heteros we know would say things like, “Oh, hey, if it doesn’t work out, you can just get divorced!”- as if they were talking about changing the drapes. Now, what will be interesting is when we can compare the divorce rates of gay couples and straight couples.
trizzlor
November 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This seems like a circular argument; SSM is a heterosexual construct because it is legally defined as such, in countries/societies where SSM is allowed the heteronormative implications cease to exist. Your argument uses monogamy rates among gay males to show that (monogamous) marriage is inherently a straight thing, but it ignores the obvious counter-evidence among gay females.
In fact, the logical conclusion is not that pre-marriage homosexuality is incompatible with monogamy, but that it merely exaggerates the gendered views on monogamy: males are generally more likely to cheat and that is specifically seen in gay males – females are generally less likely to cheat and that is specifically seen in gay females. Such an interpretation goes hand-in-hand with the idea trends in homosexual behavior are due do it being an illicit/stigmatized subgroup and that these outliers would fade when the behavior is legitimized through marriage.
It’s striking how it’s all about the male SSM (though not at all surprising). Note how Joe C. puts “at least gay men” as a parenthetic aside, where both stereotype and the study quoted by Shrock show lesbians to be a great deal more sexually exclusive than hets of either gender (i’d love to see the Z-scores for the study Shrock cites, though I doubt they were published).
I’ve occasionally thought that the “right” ghey conspiracy SSM strategy would be to go for SSM marriage for women only, on the theory that:
A) it doesn’t trigger nearly the intensity of male insecurities that teh ghey secks seems to;
B) (related IMHO to A) there’s far less to deploy based on Leviticus, Romans, etc.;
C) again AFAICT the “lesbians are perverts who are Coming After Your Children” doesn’t seem to have anywhere near the resonance with lesbians that it does with gay men (does anybody know of any statistics on sex crimes by women against minors where there was no adult male involved? my unscientific guess would be that lesbians are substantially underrepresented compared to het females, but quick googling found nothing).
You only need to swing a few percentage points in some states.
Then of course once you have female SSM in place you litigate for male SSM based on the state level sexual discrimination laws/constitutional provisions (and/or just note after a few years that God hasn’t upped the hurricane frequency).
Yes, I understand many of the objections to such a strategy, but it’s an interesting thought experiment.
Bayesian
November 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
oops, sorry, Joe – comment lag – was written before your post showed up here.
North,
I’d say the natural inclination of almost all men (as evidenced by history and backed up by empirical data) is to reject the heteronormative concept of sexual monogamy.
I have to respectfully disagree. The idea that heterosexual men by nature struggle with monogamy confuses the thought life for actual real world behavior. Sure, men may think about having sex with another woman, but they don’t act on it. Why don’t they? I suspect that most men (at least most readers of this blog) would be clever enough to pull off an affair without their spouse learning about it. So why don’t we? The reason, I think, is that we are more inclined to monogamy than we think for a variety of heteornormative reasons.
Also, its hard to imagine most straight men participating in activities that would be considered unexceptional within the gay subculture (anonymous sex with strangers in public bathrooms). It is not just our sexual orientation that distances us from our gay brethren, we are often separated by a range of norms and standards because our heteronormative (to belabor the term) views are not shared in common.
what is the positive component of your position? If not SSM then what?
Desexualized civil unions. Let any two unmarried adults form a civil partnership that would give them the same legal rights as married people receive. The state has an obvious interest in heterosexual consummation because of the role it plays in the creation of new citizens. But what legitimate interest is there in gay sex? If we should open the door for others to receive these benefits, why limit it to gays or to sexual relationships at all?
Bayesian
November 9th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Let any two unmarried adults form a civil partnership that would give them the same legal rights as married people receive.
Including adoption rights, or any other rights related to a child who is a (biological) child of only one of the people in the partnership?
Cascadian
November 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I certainly support your conclusion. I want one. I have no problem leaving “marriage” or covenant marriage to those self selecting folk.
Dave
November 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
The state has an obvious interest in heterosexual consummation because of the role it plays in the creation of new citizens.
Joe,
While I hope to get to the crux of your arguments soon (having a newborn makes blogging rather difficult), I wanted to bring this specific quote to your attention because it deals with one of the legal arguments opponents of SSM marriage have used to further their cause.
This argument has failed under heightened scrutiny (see Varnum v Brien). Even if the state has that legitimate interest, a SSM ban does not further that interest since it says nothing about heterosexual couples who either can not procreate 0r those who choose not to procreate. If the state has an interest in heterosexual consummation, then it is best not to be underinclusive and include those heterosexual couples as well.
Since SSM bans do not such thing, the only conclusion to draw from it is that it targets same-sex couples not due to their ability to naturally procreate but from class animus towards a given group. On that end, the history of discrimination towards gays speaks for itself (see Romer v Evans).
As you’ve probably noticed, the courts are starting to demolish these arguments in a big way.
Bayesian
November 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Dave -
Varnum v Brien was Iowa SC, not SCOTUS. Since IANAL, please enlighten me – do state SCs typically follow the Carolene three tier scrutiny model? La Wik’s article suggests they do and that the Iowa SC applied intermediate scrutiny.
I should note that I find it somewhat hard to imagine the present SCOTUS not finding some dressed up Think Of The Children as constituting substantially related means. Maybe in a decade or two.
For
Dave
November 10th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Bayesian,
Thank you for the clarification on Varnum. Yes, it was the Iowa Supreme Court and I should have mentioned that.
Heightened scrutiny was applied in the Iowa case, the Connecticut case (both intermediate scrutiny) and the California case (strict scrutiny). I think these were the three most recent same-sex marriage cases to go before state courts. I’m not sure if heightened scrutiny was applied in the NJ case but that may be irrelevant since the Court did not mandate same-sex marriage rights hence the passing of a civil unions law.
The most telling thing about the Varnum opinion is how easily the arguments against SSM crumble when intermediate scrutiny is applied. They can argue that there is a legitimate state purpose for some of their positions but they fail miserably on demonstrating how they show a substantial relation to those purposes. They are overinclusive in some ways, underinclusive in others and the “tradition” arguments are nothing more than circular reasoning.
There are people rightly worried about the federal same sex marriage case. Although I think the theories which would strike down these laws on 14th Amendment grounds are constitutionally sound (specifically, via Romer and Lawrence), the issue is so controversial that federal courts won’t apply heightened scrutiny and twist themselves in knots justifying the bans on rational basis grounds, the same way the New York state court did in Hernandez v Robles.
A federal case striking down same-sex marriage bans would cause a firestorm, the very least of which would be a very hard push for a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage.
North
November 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I feel we will probably have to disagree here. The oldest profession (prostitution) and the vast array of arrangements that have existed in history; mistresses, polygamy etc… Speak to a long long history of men sowing their oats wide and far. Frankly, looking at human history one could cynically say that monogamy is an ideal given much lip service but only passing obedience and that it is only with the growing empowerment of women that men have ever really been forced into it.
“Also, its hard to imagine most straight men participating in activities that would be considered unexceptional within the gay subculture (anonymous sex with strangers in public bathrooms).”
I must strongly disagree with you here, indeed the tone and way it is written makes it sound like you’re very unfamiliar with gay people outside of theory. Certainly a lot of fault for this can be laid at the feet of queer theory, leave it to a guilty gay man with tenure to make up something as complex and ridiculous as queer theory to explain something so simple. Gay men did these things (they don’t do it anywhere near as much now days) because brief quick anonymous sexual encounters were the only encounters they could count on to be cost free. The culture of prohibition against homosexuals forced this behavior upon gay men (along with to a lesser degree their nature as young men) because to have longer relationships would risk exposing their nature to a suspicious community at large. I’d also direct you to Jay’s excellent point matching gay prohibition with alcohol prohibition. I’m also cynical that there is that much room between straight men and gay ones in terms of their nature. Who, looking at the internet and fraternities and the popularity of girls gone wild, honestly thinks that straight young men would like not to indulge in the same degree of sexual activity were they not inhibited by the fact that women have no interest in such behavior?
I dare say that the state has deep and abiding interest in individuals caring for each other in ways that in their absence would require them to turn to the state. All that said I actually have no objection to your position of civil unions for all. Though I would observe that if they were created fairly and offered to all as you suggest then they likely would undermine the institution of heterosexual marriage far more than letting gays into the institution would. For where men and women currently have only one choice, marriage, under the new regime they would have two. And so, if France is to be a guide, the traditional marriages would plummet in popularity. But if the social right can swallow allowing gay partners to have their own dignity as couples only by lumping them in with various platonic groupings and damaging marriage overall so be it. They will have to move quickly on it though, there’s no reason for the left to embrace such a program.
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.
Justin_Anderson
November 10th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Joe-
I am not familiar enough with you, or your writing, to know the answer to this question, so- is your anecdotal data about sexual practices conditioned by your peer group? If so, are you older or younger? Also, what about geography?
I ask because I know of many heterosexual males, including myself, who have had anonymous sex with strangers in bathrooms. I also have several heterosexual friends (incl. myself) who, prior to monogamy, would have 20+ sexual partners per year. This may be a factor of my own particular demographic (under 40, most of the years I spent outside of Massachusetts were spent in major metropolitan areas).
Further, I think most people will agree that at least part of the reason for heightened levels of promiscuity among homosexual males is a product of there being no female gatekeeper. Though this is changing somewhat, our society has had women serving in the role as sexual gatekeeper. And, given our patriarchal culture, women received very different signals about sexual activity than males (slut versus stud, etc.). Given these realities, women concerned with their reputations would be less willing to engage in sexual relations with people who were not her long term partner. Obviously, as we move away from these sexist stereotypes, women are less worried about being labeled a slut or a whore. Thus, the sexual gatekeeper is no longer at her watch.
Now, with homosexual mean, there was no socially defined gatekeeper. Men were left to their own devices (or little heads, perhaps). Perhaps the increased monogamy that we are witnessing in gay culture is the other side of the above phenomenon. In other words, both are regressing towards the mean.
As someone who counts many gays and lesbians as close friends, there is nothing in their relationships or their sexuality that makes them more inclined to promiscuity. Obviously, lesbian women are extremely monogamous (again, maybe two gatekeepers are better than one!). I guess what I am saying, in a roundabout way, is that what you perceive as gay promiscuity, many of us (myself included) see as male promiscuity.
It may not be that simple. As others have mentioned above, there are a number of societal reasons why gays may be less monogamous. And, as society has become more accepting of gays (which it obviously has over the past 30 years), gay culture itself has adapted or become more conforming to the dominant culture’s norms.
There is a fundamental difference of opinion here. You view homosexuality as being against some natural order (given from God, presumably), which is your right to believe, but I do not know how to find common ground with someone whose beliefs are rooted in something other than reason. That aside, I think you go wrong with attributing society’s norms as those of heterosexuality, strictly speaking. It’s analogous to people who believe that morality springs only from religion (particularly theirs), when it is more likely that morality is an inherent human characteristic.
Scott, this is well intentioned in lots of ways, but treats gay culture like a free-floating bobble that has no connection to the broader universe between 1975-2009. Though HIV/AIDS certainly stimulated safer sex practices, you’re ignoring something else that makes me want to tear my hair out.
Between 1975-2009, the religious right mostly failed to keep the gays in the closet. Already by 1975, gays were culturally mainstreaming in New York and San Francisco. The APA had stopped treating homosexuality as a disorder, etc. Before the rise of Anita Bryant, Reagan, and AIDS, there was a hiccup of pro-LGBTQ initiatives at the state and local level for housing and jobs.
Being able to blow up the closet, rather than being locked in, and having your relationship put on equal footing (moving past the ‘partner’ BS–you’re not running a business or investing in stock. You’re fucking. And in love.) and given a space in the public square that shows respect for your emotional connection to someone drives up the value of long term relationships (the whistle scene in “Milk” is telling. The cop refers to the murder victim as a “Trick” and refuse to hear “Boyfriend.” Both Scott and Jack are treated as Milk’s full political spouse, after Milk wins his seat.)
So, the point is to blow up the closet for good–as demonstrated by Louis-Benoit’s NYT article–is good for everyone involved. We just have to stop the bigots from trying to make us invisible, to turn the closet into a bomb-shelter to lock us in.
It’s difficult to debate someone who has such different fundamental principles. But here goes:
1. There’s no such thing as “natural law”, unless you’re talking about bonobos (oral sex) and chimpanzees (rampant homosexuality and cheating). Leviticus, Hammurabi’s Code and the 10 Commandments are law, established by men for men. “Law” are the rules established by the powerful to govern their societies. “Natural” law, “common” law and “positive” law are all just law. There’s no magic to what our forefathers did; they were just trying to figure stuff out and preserve their way of life the same way we do today.
2. The history of “marriage” is long and cloudy; one can extract multiple different messages. But there are a few clear points — women were, for a very long time, property in the eyes of the law. Marriage was about property, not love. (Note, also, that many marriages in early America occurred less than 9 months from the birth of the first-born. Marriage occurred only after the union was fertile. This made a lot of sense for rural farming communities, but isn’t terribly applicable today.) From the franchise to the Pill to gay marriage, the last century has seen a fundamental shift in how we, as a society, want to organize ourselves. Liberty has been exalted over tradition. You’re welcome to argue that tradition is better, but I find that most people aren’t particularly interested in arguing that tradition is in and of itself worth defending. Slavery, for one, is a powerful counterargument. Tradition needs to be coupled with something else to justify its preservation.
3. The weakness of the unqualified appeal to tradition is why, I believe, so many anti-SSMers believe that gay men are different. They cannot control their passions, so therefore they should not receive the civil rights and privileges of marriage.
feh. It’s pretty clear that homosexuality has a genetic component. What it is, where it is, and how it’s expressed in fetal development and thereafter are hard questions that for now are unanswered. What is also unproven is whether there’s a genetic component to infidelity (for lack of a better word) and whether that genetic factor is linked to homosexuality. There’s nowhere near the evidence, either genetically or epidemiologically, to make that argument at this time. That’s just handwaving. (With, frequently, a strong undercurrent of bigotry. The history of objections to inter-racial marriage bears strong resemblance to the current fight over SSM.)
As far as I’m concerned, this debate was resolved when women got the vote. Once society accepted that women were not property of the marital estate but instead had their own separate legal existence, it was only a matter of time before the definition of marriage evolved to recognize the individuality of the partners. Inter-racial and now same-sex marriage are simply further applications of the same idea.
trizzlor
November 10th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I think Francis really nailed it, but to underscore the broader (and somewhat beaten to death) point about similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement, here is a paper showing rural African Americans to have “concurrent sexual partnerships” at a rate of 53% – not statistically dissimilar from that amongst gay males. As it is here, when the variation within subgroups is just as high as the variation between groups, there isn’t really any evidence to tie monogamy and s0-called heteronormal behavior together.
Some great rebuttals, and I want to add two notes about anonymous bathroom sex.
1) From a personal perspective as a gay man, I do not regard washroom sex as unexceptional at all. I would never engage in it and associate with no one who would admit to it. This is obviously anecdotal, but being gay, it strikes me as odd that someone else would so casually ascribe traits to myself that I do not possess or recognize, either in myself or dozens of other young gay men.
2) I would argue that cruising and washroom sex are age- or status-specific. The men who engage in them will likely never admit to it, they are likely above 30, and often self-identify as straight in much of their life. They engage in anonymous sex because they desire anonymity, and if a gay culture exists (as tenuous construct as any other) they are fringe participants, with little interest in fostering any sort of homosexual identity, either personally or in others. The Larry Craig archetype is, I suspect, all too common.
One more thing: I am personally monogamous not because I feel I should assimilate into any sort of heterosexual culture, but because I simply feel it is for me. I like being monogamous. I like being in a relationship with one person. And I don’t like someone telling me that I’m simply adopting some heterosexual value set.
Ultimately, I think Francis inadvertently gets at the core of what’s going on here. He essentially dismisses the idea that there could be something like a transcendent moral principle out of hand. That accomplished, well, all bets are kind of off, aren’t they? I mean, if you can get the statistics to say what you want, you win.
By contrast, Joe’s entire argument, if only he would stick to it, is premised upon the existence of a particular transcendent moral principle. A divinely instituted one, in fact. Arguments that homosexual men may/may not tend towards infidelity at a higher/lower rate than heterosexual men are not only entirely irrelevant, they undermine his argument by transforming the analysis from theology to utility. The historic Christian argument against SSM is not contingent upon the relative merits of SSM vis a vis traditional marriage but upon the fact that we believe, as the church has always believed, that God doesn’t like it. More than that, this, like other claims to theological morality, is not predicated upon the relative utility of the conduct in question. “Because it’s good/bad for you” is entirely incidental to Christian ethics, and the fact that so many conservative Christians do their ethics according to this sort of utilitarian calculus simply demonstrates that they aren’t really doing Christian ethics, they’re trying to make secular ethics come out the way they want. I think this is what Joe winds up doing. No, “Because God says so” is the faithful response to questions about the reasons why we should obey divine law.
Consider the following, penned by one wiser than I:
To do the good and reject the evil from a reasoned insight into their respective natures is a noble thing, but it is a still nobler thing to do so out of regard for the nature of God, and the noblest thing of all is the ethical strength, which, when required, will act from personal attachment to God, without for the moment enquiring into these more abstruse reasons. The pure delight in obedience adds to the ethical value of a choice.
This is not a position to which statistics about fidelity are relevant. It is one premised on the revealed will of God. If you want to deny that God exists, or that he has revealed his will, or that that revelation is relevant today, then the conversation is basically over. Unless that point is resolved, all others are moot.
So when Joe deigns to debate the merits of SSM, he has effectively already lost, having conceded the crux of his argument from the outset. And when Francis assumes/asserts, as so many others here do, that the analysis must turn on the pros and cons of homosexual relationships, he has already missed the real point of departure.
Personally, I have no real opinion on the relative merits of homosexual relationships. I’ve seen enough caring gay couples and enough toxic heterosexual ones to not find that particular debate to be all that interesting. I also have a rather personal connection here, because I had a relative who was one of the gay men who died of AIDS before age fifty. But all this debate about merits and public policy is irrelevant. The thing which is required to convince me and others like me that SSM should be permitted is a serious theological case to that effect, i.e. one which does not include a permise that Scripture is out of date, culturally irrelevant, or invalid as discriminatory, and does not dispense with certain parts of Scripture as unfaithful to other, more politically palatable parts. You have to deal with the whole thing as a coherent unit with an undivided message. The failure to do these things is the real reason lefty Christians are under fire for supporting homosexuality. Yeah, it’s bad that they’re taking that ethical position, but the real problem is that completely independent of the issue of homosexuality, they don’t believe the Bible in any way which fits with a historical understanding of what that means.
Now one might respond that, like Francis, I’m defining the terms of the argument in such a way that I can’t help but win. That’s precisely the point. The two sides of the debate, Joe’s discourse notwithstanding, are premised on two completely incompatable systems of assumptions about the world which imply conclusions on SSM as straight-up deductions. As soon as Joe decides to engage on the issue of relative merits, he loses.
Francis
November 10th, 2009 at 10:24 am
when you write “God doesn’t like it”, how do you know? More to the point, how can you be sufficient sure as to make policy on that belief? After all, the historical track record of things that Christians “knew” about God’s desires for civil society is not all that impressive. Burning heretics, slavery, anti-miscegenation, and the subordination of women to men come quickly to mind.
Whatever happened to “God is love” and “render unto Caesar …”? It seems to me that there’s plenty of room for a devout Christian to uphold civil SSM, if for no other reason than they should have some doubt as to whether they’ve heard their god’s message clearly.
Ryan Davidson
November 10th, 2009 at 11:24 am
How do I know? Because Scripture is pretty unambigious about what it says about sexuality, i.e. heterosexual sex between a married couple is the only form of sexual conduct of which God approves. The only way to get around that is to be okay with dispensing with parts of Scripture that you don’t like as irrelevant or outdated. Until the last century, no one in the church called that into question, and the only people who do aren’t generally known for their high view of Scripture.
But this is just a recapitulation of what I said earlier. You aren’t actually saying that I’m wrong under my terms, you’re questioning the possibility that I could be right under yours, largely by calling into question the idea that it’s possible to know anything about what God wants and then by pointing out the obvious historical fact that the church isn’t perfect.
Not gonna bite. Like I said before, if you want to advance an argument about how support for SSM is consistent with orthodox Christianity, go right ahead, but you haven’t done so thus far. Until you do, there’s no reason to engage, as doing so would be on terms which I won’t accept.
Cascadian
November 10th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I don’t think anyone here has any problem whatsoever with a particular church defining marriage however they want. The question is if this is a purely religious belief what business does it have in secular governance? If marriage is ultimately religious, fine. Get it out of the state and back into the churches where it belongs. If you would like to add your voice to the general cultural debate, and you’re not inclined to argue for theocracy, you must do exactly as Joe has done and find a way to persuade on grounds other than “my preacher says”.
Jaybird
November 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
If it is religious primarily (and I’d grant that it is), why can’t we allow other religions to get into the game as well?
Let the Unitarians hold Lifepartnership Ceremonies in the basement and kill some chickens or whatever the hell it is that Unitarians do and, hurray, we have two blood-flecked lifepartners now.
We can even pretend that it’s covered by The First Amendment!
(Oh, the forefathers could never have foreseen religions that allowed for gay marriage, the first amendment doesn’t mean *THAT*, surely we need reasonable restrictions on liberty if society is to mean anything at all, if you don’t like it, move to Somalia)
Cascadian
November 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Yup, that is the other way to go. Unfortunately, the gov. has less than sterling track record of allowing for religions that aren’t roughly monotheistic and christian like. I’d rather just get the gov out of the business all together than change the debate to “is FSM a real religion”.
Ryan Davidson
November 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Cascadian and Jaybird, the problem with that is you’re essentially saying that no religiously-motivated policy preferences may be expressed in the public square. So you can’t say that we should take care of the poor because God says to either. In fact, under your analysis, no religious person may make sincere policy arguments, because a religious person will almost certainly have religious motivations for everything they do or believe. Yet you’ve declared religious motivations to be inherently illegitimate as premises for public activity.
I can’t say that I find this a particularly compelling reason to either 1) take you seriously, or 2) bother to reason with you. The only way you’re prepared to allow religious persons to participate in public discourse is if they pretend not to be religious. So much for religious freedom and tolerance. The only option available to believers under the circumstances you impose is to attempt to defeat you politically, by whatever means are available.
This, I suggest, is not really the outcome you want. But unless you can suggest an alternative, it’s the one you’re going to get. Indeed, it’s the one which is rapidly coming to fruition. I can think of worse ways to explain the increasing polarization of our political discourse, that’s for sure.
Jaybird
November 10th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
No, you misunderstand my nuance.
I believe that *ALL* of them may be expressed in the public square.
If you think that all atheists are going to go to hell? More power to you!
If you think that all Evangelicals are misled fools who should have followed Joseph Smith? Grab a soapbox!
If you think that gay guys can get married? Why the hell not?
If you think that they can’t? Get in line!
Everybody is allowed to think whatever they want.
“So you can’t say that we should take care of the poor because God says to either.”
I would be allowed, under my hypothetical situation, to be a libertarian who says that Welfare as practiced by The State creates a culture of dependency and we should end it forthwith. I’d also, under my hypothetical situation, be allowed to call the libertarians “racists” and point out that they are the types of people who want children to die in the street like dogs.
It’s win-win for everybody involved!
The only thing that you’re not allowed to do is prevent speech, pamphleting, religious practice, etc.
If your arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny, one hopes that your throat will eventually grow hoarse.
Ryan Davidson
November 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Actually, I think you’re the one missing the nuance here.
You’re saying that arguments must stand up to scrutiny. But you’re unwilling to contemplate that it’s possible for religious arguments to do so on their own terms. They have to be scrutinized under your terms, which disqualify religious arguments as legitimate. So yeah, I can say whatever I want, but if I expect to be heard, I have to toe the non-religious party line.
Sorry. Not interested. If I’m gonna lose on the issue anyways, I’d much rather do so while maintaining the integrity of my faith than while betraying it.
Jaybird
November 10th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I am 100% down with religious arguments standing up to strutiny on their own terms.
I’m not saying that *YOU* have to change. Don’t change! You be you!
I’m saying that your religious argument that stands up to scrutiny under its own terms does not stand up to scrutiny under my terms and, you know what, I don’t have to change.
Console yourself with the thought of denying me even a sip of water as I burn eternally crying for mercy.
Cascadian
November 10th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
No, what I’m saying is that in reality there are too many religious perspectives. Arguing from, because my god told me, doesn’t help if you have societies that allow for more than one god or none at all.
I agree with your analysis with where this is heading. The Muslims will try and out breed the Christians and thereby allow them to impose their religion on you. The atheists will continue to corrupt as many of both of your young with sex, drugs and rock and roll so that we can free ourselves from both your foolishness. The only way to finish this off is the Hitch route. Place a social stigma on both your houses, moderate and extreme alike. Besides, Christianity was more compelling when it was illegal. Here’s to the good old days.
trizzlor
November 10th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Sorry to butt in, but I think the point here is not that religious people should be banned from discourse rather that they should have other justifications for their proposed reasoning. In other words, while “the bible tells us so” certainly doesn’t disqualify an argument, it doesn’t support it either in a legal/government context. I hope this isn’t a controversial claim to you as I’m sure you can imagine many thought experiments where lunatics invent their own deity and issue decrees.
Of course, the loophole that men of religion often rely on is “empirical” justification – that following the Bible has inherently worked well for many societies and generations and so we too should follow it. In fact, returning to the original argument, I’m quite certain that this is essentially the point Carter is making: that, just like the bible says, homosexuals have been shown to be completely different beings in terms of marriage and so should be treated as such in the eyes of the law.
Dave
November 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
In fact, under your analysis, no religious person may make sincere policy arguments, because a religious person will almost certainly have religious motivations for everything they do or believe. Yet you’ve declared religious motivations to be inherently illegitimate as premises for public activity.
Religious motivation is not inherently illegitimate. Religious motivation to pass a law that seeks to discriminate against a class of individuals based on the identity of that group violates the Constitution and is illegitimate. However, I’ll let you in on a little secret, non-religious motivation to pass a law that seeks to discriminate against a class of individuals based on the identity of that group violates the Constitution as well and is also illegitimate.
In other words, I do not care what your motivations are. Laws that fail to serve a valid public purpose tend to fall outside the police power of the states and violate the 14th Amendment. One did not have to justify the Texas anti-sodomy law struck down in Lawrence v Texas on religious motivation. Class animus more than did the trick.
Ryan Davidson
November 10th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Because “valid public purpose” isn’t a loaded term at all.
See, this is why orthodox Christians have always been warier of governments in general and the promises of the United States government in particular than populist, civil religion types have…
Dave
November 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
How is “valid public purpose” loaded? A law applies to everyone equally and does not seek to benefit or burden one group to the expense or to the benefit of everyone else. That’s a pretty standard classical liberal police power description to me.
See, this is why orthodox Christians have always been warier of governments in general and the promises of the United States government in particular than populist, civil religion types have…
Our Constitution protects the right for you to freely exercise your religion. Now, if you think that government has failed in that promise, you need to explain why.
Cascadian
November 10th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“bother to reason with you.”
Wait, I thought we were throwing reason out and only dealing on your particular religious understanding. And yeah, since I don’t share your personal religion I guess I should ignore your perspective.
North
November 10th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
But Ryan, if the right is forced to conceed all of the secular field to SSM proponents they will loose. Under equal protection and seperation of church and state they’re not going to be able to sustain a ban on SSM on the basis of Theology. Not in the courts or the court of public opinion.
My point is that orthodox Christians are about as hypocritical as anyone gets, to the great detriment of a disfavored minority. When I see a fraction of the effort that’s put into anti-SSM campaigns put toward revoking divorce or punishing fornication or any of the other commandments of scripture, then I’ll still disagree but at least recognize that you take your faith seriously. Until then, it seems to me that the anti-SSM forces are relying scripture only to reinforce existing biases.
The claim of being guided by faith is, mostly, just not credible.
Cascadian
November 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I want to see a culture war against shellfish and Cheeseburgers.
Jaybird
November 10th, 2009 at 11:43 am
My body, my choice.
Cascadian
November 10th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
You just don’t understand devine wisdom… pagan!
Jaybird
November 10th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Keep your Hojatoleslam out of my kitchen.