Volokh has an extensive post here about a Wall Street Journal piece (here, but subscription required). Using evidence from Scandinavia, where countries started legalizing gay marriage 17 years ago, the authors argue that straight marriage — measured by divorce rates, etc. — actually got stronger after the redefinition. The article is based on the authors’ book.
I (and the authors) have some strong skepticism about a causal relationship here. There is no logical reason to believe letting gays get married will change whether straights get divorced. I would suspect factors other than gay marraige influenced these statistics. The one credible assertion is that gay relationships improved, measured in monogamy — that makes sense.
Besides, the (logical) argument about weakening marriage has nothing to do with the effect, real or imagined, on straight relationships. As Rick Santorum beautifully argued (though I believe the government should get out of marriage), marriage is recognized by the state because it is the only relationship that can naturally lead to children. It is not just an homage to two people’s commitment to each other; it is a mechanism for continuing our society.
Gay marriage, by contrast, happens solely for the satisfaction and stability of the individuals involved. You can argue (and I would) that’s a worthy goal in itself, but you have to admit that redefining marriage like this turns it from a selfless into a selfish institution.
An empirical study on how gay marriage affects straight relationships is completely irrelevant to this argument.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Loading ...
4 users commented in " WSJ piece: Gay marriage strengthens straight marriage "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWow, I can’t believe how off base this piece is. The holes in logic that start from the sentence the sentence “As Rick Santorum …” are big enough to drive a truck through. The sentence “…marriage is recognized by the state because it is the only relationship that can naturally lead to children…” is so sketchy that in pretty much discounts the rest of the piece. Because in five seconds I am sure I could come up with a number of “relationship(s) that could lead to children — boyfriend and girlfriend, two strangers drunk at a singles bar, or a petrie dish, test tube, and a surogate mother. This type of editorializing does nothing but discredit the point of this article.
While I agree gay marriage probably does little or nothing to influence straight marriage one way or another. So I agree with the writer here that “the government should get out of marriage”. It does seem probable that a society that has become more concerned about “satisfaction and stability of the individuals” perhaps has progressed to a point where marriage is simply a more viable institution as a whole. To the point the government, culture, society has moved to a point where marriage as an institution is stronger and the symptons are gay marriage and a lower divorce rate — separate from each other. So they could be linked but one not casing the other. Symptoms rather than causes.
As for “selfless” versus “selfish” mutual exclusive relationships are always selfish to some degree. It is simply the need to be that whatever for the other individual. I am not saying that is wrong, however, let’s be honest. The claim, “We made ii “work” for the children.” is ludicrous because it seldomn does. I think more often people use this argument to justify their co-dependence, fear of the unknown, and laziness. While divorce is not a good thing, perhaps sometimes it is the right answer.
So I have no qualms with the writers opinions, beliefs, or thesis (plural) that he comes up with the tortured nature of the logic cast them in a dim, if not questionable light.
Your allegations of “tortured” logic are ludicrous, but you have one point. I should have said “heterosexual marriage” is the only “stable” way to naturally bring children into the world. Anyone honestly reading the post would realize that’s what I meant — not that biology waits until marriage regardless of whether people do — but in this day and age one has to strive for ultimate clarity. Otherwise you end up with some nitpicker or hostile critic intentionally misinterpreting you. (Ahem.)
And it’s amusing you’re content to labor over every nuance a four-paragraph post doesn’t address, yet you don’t propose an alternative. Why do YOU think marriage is recognized by the government, and has been since long before the days of massive government expansion? To make married people feel good about themselves, or to continue society?
And you can have a late-night dorm room discussion about whether any relationship is selfless, but the post isn’t about the relationship. It’s about the institution and the government’s involvement. My thesis is that the government doesn’t involve itself in marriage for the married people’s sake. (The married people are, after all, adults who can take care of themselves.)
Finally, if I wasn’t going to “editorialize,” I would’ve kept reporting news instead of blogging about it. Don’t read blogs if you don’t want opinion.
Drive the truck through, please. I’m waiting.
P.S. “Theses” is plural for “thesis.”
The study presented, as I think Volokh argues well enough, does seem to cast doubt on the argument that allowing gay marriage would weaken heterosexual marriage (which was already dubious). You cite (without endorsing) a different argument, however:
“As Rick Santorum beautifully argued (though I believe the government should get out of marriage), marriage is recognized by the state because it is the only relationship that can naturally lead to children. It is not just an homage to two people’s commitment to each other; it is a mechanism for continuing our society.
Gay marriage, by contrast, happens solely for the satisfaction and stability of the individuals involved. You can argue (and I would) that’s a worthy goal in itself, but you have to admit that redefining marriage like this turns it from a selfless into a selfish institution.”
This doesn’t seem as clear to me as it might to you, perhaps because I have not read Santorum’s book or whatever you base your comments here on. I have read similar arguments though, elsewhere. What is unclear to me, as far as your comments go, is how taking out the possibility of reproduction in a marriage (as would be done, perhaps, in the case of male homosexuals - but not necessarily female ones) makes it a ’selfish’ institution as opposed to a ’selfless’ one. I grant that adding an extra life into a marriage may increase the scope of possible selflessness (at least as it is defined here) for the partners, but not adding a life is not therefore ’selfish’, at least not in any ethically meaningful way. And as far as the argument for state action goes (which you do not advocate), would we want a state to disallow heterosexual marriages that would not or could not result in reproduction and child-rearing?
That said, thanks for discussing the issue of gay marriage without citing the Bible or making other purely subjective/prejudicial appeals. Whatever one may think of some of your arguments, at least they are arguments.
Peter,
Thanks for the comment. I think the distinction I didn’t make clear enough is the one between “relationship” and “institution.”
Of course every relationship has an element of personal satisfaction. In fact, if getting married/having kids won’t make you happier, you probably shouldn’t do it!
The argument here is that the government’s involvement — the institution — exists not for this reason, but for the possibility of children. I’m no historian, but that’s Santorum’s take and I’ve never heard a critic challenge it.
Homosexual marriage, by contrast (excluding adoption and surrogate parenting, which are side issues right now and not even many activists are pointing to them), pretty much exists for the partners. It is a social and tax endorsement of the union, not a mechanism for furthering society. I’m fine with that (government out would be better), but we have to concede the religious right’s contention that this is a significant redefinition. Not all opposition stems from bigotry.
Also, you bring up the common point of, “well, should we ban infertile marriage then?” I’d argue that’s not inconsistent with this interpretation of marriage’s purpose. Rather, it would be an unnecessary and cumbersome step — a political point to take the philosophy to its logical extreme.
Every institution benefits some people it’s not designed for. That isn’t a reason to intentionally include whole classes of people it’s not designed for. Some well-off people can sneak their ways into any welfare system, but that doesn’t mean we should start writing all rich folks checks.
Bear in mind that government policies are not different for each individual. One policy applies to everyone, which means that any distinctions have to be between groups. Few other policies require the privacy invasion and government cost of fertility testing for each license (driving and carrying a gun, maybe).
What would anyone gain from such an endeavor? I’d think the testing and adminsitration costs would exceed any tax revenue saved.
(However, even under the current system, I think family tax breaks should be tied to children. There’s no real reason two married people with no kids — they actually save money by combining living expenses — should pay less than two single people, unless you’re going for outright please-get-married social engineering. But I digress.)
I’d definitely recommend the book, btw. Nutty as Santorum can sound, it’s very reasonable and well argued.
Leave A Reply