Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast and Rod Dreher at The American Conservative debate ideas I raised in “Get Ready for Group Marriage.”
For more, read One Parent or Five.
Categories: Marriage, The Future of Parenthood
| « Pardon me, miss, but would you like my sperm? | Muppets, Maps, and Meaning » |
Elizabeth, the truly ironic thing is that point of difference between gay couples marrying and polygamous marriages is exactly the point that many conservatives, including some here, try very hard to ignore or disprove, namely that homosexual (and heterosexual) orientation is innate and immutable. (of course acting on/exhibiting your genetic disposition isn’t always the case people stay in the closet (they also dye their hair, have plastic surgery, etc.). Marriage equality is coming and it would certainly be better from your standpoint of it comes via the being-gay-is-immutable/gender agrument that has won every recent winning court case on marriage. If it is only a matter of who to marry then you might have a point, but the actual court decisions involve addressing discrimination directed at a specific group of people based on sexual orientation or gender. Laws against legal recognition of polygamy do not discriminate as they apply to everyone equally. Stressing this point is really credulity. Polygamists are a VERY fringey group in the US; there are about 15 million gay people in the IS and we are in 68% of American families. (which is not coincidentally the percentage of American adults who favor either civil unions or marriage equality. (25% favor no legal recognition for gay couples))
*really straining credulity. If you want to convince people, you have to have an argument is demonstrable and fringey lefties and people who live in compounds don’t suffice. That circles back to my point, the reason marriage for gay couples is gaining support so rapidly here is that there are many of us, we are already openly living it – demonstrating the beauty and value and mundaneness and just-like-youness every day, we are already married in all but law (and in law in some states) – and we are in 7 of 10 American families. We have always been in those families. Polygamist never have and never will be.
I highly recommend UCLA Prof. Eugene Volokh’s Same-Sex Marriage and Slippery Slopes, because:
1) Volokh has thought a lot about slippery slopes in general, and uses the slippery-slope to legalized polygamy as a very interesting case-study.
2) Volokh is a great writer, and this article is waay more accessible than most any other law-review article you’ll come across.
The article was honored with a Dukeminier Award in 2006.
Christopher, I don’t think the poly issue is a big one, in that it’s likely to sweep America any time soon, but I think it’s an interesting case study in how we can and apparently cannot talk about marriage in America today.
As far as identification, some polyamorous folks say being poly is just who they are. That it is a hard wired identity, the way some gay folks say being gay is.
Well, you might say, studies haven’t been done on the poly folks like they’ve been done on gay folks. But one could easily respond that looking at how challenging monogamy is for so many people, maybe most people really are “poly” in some fundamental way.
As a side issue, responding to your innate and immutable argument re gay and lesbian identity, personally I subscribe to the continuum theory. I think some people are wired pretty heterosexual, some people are wired pretty homosexual, others fall in between at various points on the scale and there is some element of choice.
Incidentally, just as, with regard to monogamy, there is a strong element of choice.
Our report One Parent or Five treats the poly example as one among many contemporary examples of the fragmentation of parenthood. I’m quite interested in and at various points have written about and will continue to write about all the others too (single mom by choice, third party reproduction, etc).
That’s a facile analysis Elizabeth. There are very very few poly people in the US and even fewer who would say they are hardwired for it. You ignored my point that gay people are in almost everyone’s family, and that ploys are certainly not. You say there is an element of choice for some people, probably true, BUT no chooses where to fall on the continuum of sexuality. Bisexuals have to choose a partner if they wish to marry, one partner, just as straight and gay people do. That’s a burden under the law but it is not an UNEQUAL burden. It applies equally to everyone. Part of the contract of marriage is giving up to get, I’m sure you’d agree with that, and we all must give up equally. You have very good points about ART/gamete donation etc., but when you promote reasons to deny civil equality to specific groups of people, reasons that don’t bear serious scrutiny (read the Volokh piece that David T linked to, he, writing in May 2008, demolishes polygamy as a fear from both the legal and legislative standpoints) many people will take your good points less seriously and I think that is unfortunate. (of course you can whatever you want however you want but you can’t a lot people to take you a serious commentator if you promote a linkbetween something as fringey as polygamy and gay couples who are entrenched in society – in almost every family, in almost every neighborhood (I don’t see a poly Ellen & Portia having a top rated syndicated talk show or being a spokesperson for a brand like “Cover Girl”, do you? In my experience, P&G is very careful with its branding decisions.) I’d agree that monogamy is hard but it is hard for everyone, as is anyone say obeying the speed limit, no shoplifting, not punching someone who annoys you. We all have times when the law, contracts, or even custom is onerous to us, but as with two person marriage they apply to us all equally. Or rather marriage laws are on the way to being applied equally.
Read this for some scientific perspective. articles.lattices.com/2010/feb/23/opinion/le-oe-robash23-2010feb23 Also just a clarifying question/s, you believe that there are gay people who are absolutely “born this way” and yet though it is immutable , those people still don’t merit equal treatment? Do those people, those Kinsey 6s, deserve it? Does the constitution require it? It certainly can’t be because they are infertile as couples as we don’t require that of heterosexuals in order to civilly marry. I am asking you because I respect your positions in other areas and your intelligence not as a “gotcha” question. I am really asking to think this through.
Sorry that link should read: articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/23/opinion/la-oe-rosbash23-2010feb23. Or just google “genetics and Prop 8″.
Yes Christopher even though I believe some are “born that way” and others have more choice in the matter, I do think that the goods in conflict argument makes sense here: that there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who wish to have equal rights to marry someone of the same sex, and there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who believe redefining marriage will weaken even more the social and legal idea that kids, the vast majority of whom are born to heterosexuals, need whenever possible to know and be known by their mothers and fathers, which is most likely to happen with their mother and father are married to each other.
I’m going to stop there. I’ve made this argument a million times and don’t feel like refighting it here. I’m sure you’re tired of hearing me say it, anyway.
By the way, you seem to have some outdated “we are everywhere” ten percent idea about gay and lesbian persons. It seems that it’s closer to about two percent of the population who identify as gay or lesbian. These folks are not present in everyone’s family, although it’s certainly not uncommon for people to be related to someone who identifies as gay or lesbian. Which is all really beside the point but the stickler in me feels like correcting you on that.
I’m not tired of hearing it Elizabeth, I don’t think we hear anywhere near enough of it.
15 million gay people in the US would be 4.6% of the population, the Williams Institute put the figure at about 4%.
I cant find my source for the 68% figure, but five years ago it was 41% (Pew) (Pew is generally an
low outlyer in this survey as opposed to CNN, Wapo, etc) so we can very safely call it “more than half”. I am asking you genuine and polite questions. For the record, I am not tired of hearing the answers. As I said, I admire and respect much of what you do. I think if you read Volokh you’ll see why the poly argument is spurious. Of course there are reasons to hear everyone’s concerns, this is America after all, but what I’m getting at is can we deny a group of people with an immutable trait the equal treatment guarantee in the Constitution because of something we fear might happen and that can be addressed in various ways (and in our very diverse society is determined by the individual decisions of parents). You will be one of the people whomhelps reach those people to make more responsible decisions, but is it impolitic to point out that if you promote memes like “get ready for group marriage” when even you yourself say it’s “(not) a big one”, undercuts your ability to reach individual parents outside of the conservative echochamber (yes there liberal ones too)? Again, you can talk about that any way you see fit, this is America after all, but as a marketer I’d suggest that when you put that message the consequence is that your audience shrinks for the next message and the next. Ones that might be more important. Let me reiterate, this isn’t anger talking nor is it snark. You need to have a broad moral authority to reach people, credibility in marketing terms, believibilty, in order to change hearts and minds. Be careful not to cede it on the hill of something thats “not big”.
[...] comments at Family Scholars Blog, responding to Christopher, Elizabeth wrote a very concise summary of the heart of her own [...]
Oooh, I hope no one minds me running with this:
“It seems that it’s closer to about two percent of the population who identify as gay or lesbian.”
I would agree, the 10% isn’t necessarily accurate. But I also think it’s been (and always will be) pretty tricky to get an accurate count, due to the fluidity of sexual orientation, people’s (un)willingness to self-identify as gay/lesbian/bisexual, and because those categories are not captured in the US Census in the way that other categories are.
This is a good opinion piece on the topic by a demographer. His research found that 3.8% of Americans self-identify as LGBT, while more than twice that reported same-sex sexual activity and attraction.
Interestingly, a popular dating website reported much, much higher rates of people being attracted to people of the same-sex and/or of having had same-sex sexual experiences. Sorry, I forgot which dating site it was, so I can’t find the link right now- but the percentages where very high, especially for women.
So… I’m not sure what it means, if we’re counting “LGB people” that there are lots of people who self-identify as straight but who also are attracted to people of the same sex and/or who sometimes have sex with people of the same sex. I respect people’s right to self-identify however they want, but if we’re measuring same-sex attraction/sex it does seem like many people are bisexual even if they’re not willing to own that label.
NB: I am not fighting with you. This is not what fighting looks like to me. In my experience fighting is a lot tougher all around. If I wanted to fight with you, or anyone here, I would simply ignore you. For me this an honest dialog (I’ve come to respect a lot of people here and their points around gamete donation for instance (as you know).) having an actual dialog is another story and takes a lot of work and can be very frustrating indeed. If I you guys were simply homophobes I wouldn’t bother, but I believe you actually trying to balance two things; I think you would benefit from hearing from people like me whose lives and rights ate at stake here. It is sometimes difficult to relate that experience here, but I do it because I believe, most of the time, you and some others here are listening and genuinely considering it. I don’t think I am wrong about that
A note in terms of the 4% figure. These are self reporting openly gay people. A person can still be fired for being gay in 29 states. If you lived in one of those states and you were gay or lesbian would you volunteer that information to a complete stranger? Neither would I.
Christopher, you bring up a really good point when you mention that most people have LGBT people in their family, and that informs their perception of LGBT relationships—that many straight people have come or are coming to the conclusion that LGBT relationships are no different than straight ones because they see them side-by-side.
In light of Barry’s recent post, I’d say that this is responsible for the majority of pro-SSM sentiment among nonintellectuals like myself. I have three LGBT relatives (that I know of so far) in my immediate extended family (meaning: down to first cousins, without getting into the whole first-cousin-once-removed and so on). Two lesbians, one gay man. So far, my gay cousin’s relationship has lasted longer than most of the marriages—over ten years. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be able to marry. Of the folks in my immediate extended family who oppose SSM, all do so on religious grounds—they have no qualms against any of the heterosexual folks who cohabit instead of marry, nor against those who’ve had children without being married. It’s the gayness itself they’re opposed to; they believe that sexual acts with someone of the same sex is wrong under any circumstances—it has nothing to do with fear of the weakening of marriage as an institution, or fear of harmful effects of ART (which frankly, doesn’t enter the consciousness of most folks from my background, who assume ART is rarer than it is because of the expense).
That’s a pretty common reaction in my environs—almost all the younger (Gen X and younger) folks) are pro-SSM as a basic issue of fairness, of justice. Some of the older folks agree. Those that don’t are against people *being queer*—that LGBT people should not be LGBT, let alone enter a relationship, let alone get *married*.
Question time for those who are anti-SSM. If all anonymous donor ART were illegal, would that change your mind about SSM? (I ask because, like I’ve said before—all the LGBT couples I know who are raising children are doing so because the children came from a previous hetero relationship they had when trying to make themselves “go straight”, or have kids via adoption. That’s why I tend to see ART as a red herring in discussions of SSM; legalization of SSM isn’t going to make ART more affordable for working class gay or lesbian couples, but it will make adoption more accessible.)
La Lubu:
http://familyscholars.org/2010/07/10/the-compromise-i-think-i-could-accept/
and
http://familyscholars.org/2010/07/12/same-sex-marriage-and-the-needs-of-donor-conceived-persons-a-compromise/
Good points LL. Elizabeth, to her great credit, did propose something like that here last year. But it makes little sense and is completely unfeasible to condition the rights one group (gay people) on the whole populace being denied a medical procedure currently available or changing the regs surrounding it (btw I agree both marriage equality and banning anonymous donation should happen and soon), making A contingent on B happening (especially when it is not being seriously considered in any state legislature now) is ridiculous and a bit cruel. Btw, if that is a serious concern for anti-equality advocates, them why has no one ever tried to do what EM has suggested and put it as part of marriage bills? In NY for instance? IAV is based there and yet no one even brought that up. Similarly with IL civil unions bill. No one has even brought up post facto. The fact is that very very few people ise gamete donation and almost no one connects those two issues. I’ve heard the figure that 30% of sperm donor receivers are lesbians, but what percentage of lesbians is that? Anyone have an actual answer to that? My sense is around 3 – 5%, and gay men who but eggs are certainly far less than 1%. Anyone want to refute or confirm? Those numbers, I think it’s about 30,000 births os that right?) per year in this doesn’t make the denial of the right to know your biology any less serious, but neither does the fact that we as a country are denying 2% or 4% or 10% of our fellow Americans the freedom of the “fundamental right” (SCOTUS’ word in numerous decisions) based on an immutable trait in aide of a problem 97% did not create.
I would be interested in seeing statistics regarding percentages of same-sex couples who use ART, and what percentage of total couples who use ART are same-sex couples.
In my anecdotal experience, out of the many same-sex couples I know, only one lesbian couple has used ART- and they used anonymous sperm donation. The others either are not raising children, have children from previous relationships, or have adopted.
And, as La Lubu mentions, I think it can be a class issue, as the cost puts ART out of reach for many couples. Although, I also know some same-sex couples who don’t agree with using ART.
“I would be interested in seeing statistics regarding percentages of same-sex couples who use ART, and what percentage of total couples who use ART are same-sex couples.”
I would too.
Pregnacies resulting from sperm donation are not tracked in the US, so no one knows. Pregnancies resulting from egg donation and embryo transfer are tracked, but I’m not sure if gender and sexual identity of the parents is tracked. I tend to doubt it. I also suspect that many more lesbians use sperm donation to get pregnant than gay men use egg donation and surrogacy to get pregnant (for one thing, the egg donation/surrogacy is far more expensive, and it also seems there is some old fashioned gendered stuff going on here too of women being more likely than men to want children).
Fannie, that’s my experience too. My partner and I know 150 or 200 gay or lesbian couples and we know one that used gamete donation, and one other that considered and rejected it (both male couples). Of the couples we know about 15% have kids, most of them are adopted.
Thanks for that info, Elizabeth. I wasn’t sure if pregnancies resulting from sperm or egg donation were tracked. I would support regulation of the sperm/egg donation in the US. But of course, the devil would be in the details.
Christopher, just so we’re clear, I agree that making SSM contingent on the banning of anonymous gamete donation is ridiculously cruel.
I just find it weird that so few (if any; I haven’t encountered any) SSM opponents who openly state that marriage is unnecessary for couples who choose to, or cannot have children—that they should be satisfied with cohabitation instead.
LL: satisfied with cohabitation, or with civil unions. If this idea that you must be able to procreate to marry because that is absolutely essential to marriage then we would obviously bar elderly people from marriage, or we would make people submit fertility tests (blood tests were widely required in order to obtain marriage licenses in the past so the idea of fertility tests should, logically, not be anthema to those who velieve producing children is essential to marriage. But of course, even SCOTUS has ruled that producing children and even sex is not essential to the fundamental right to marry (Turner v Safley, 1987).
I think you and I must have very different definitions of “nonintellectual.”
Barry, please.
I’m a construction worker. I have an associates degree, but no further education. I don’t think reading a lot of books qualifies one to bestow the title “intellectual” upon oneself. I just learned how to write fancy, is all. I can code-switch effectively…..on paper. In person, I kinda look like Snookie all grown up, without the gaudy clothes. Trust when I say that folks don’t expect words of over two syllables to leave my mouth when they see me in person. (in fact, during one of my daughter’s IEP meetings, I heard one teacher stage-whisper to another, “my, that’s a big word” when I said “pathologize”. Yeah. That bad.)
I call BS. That’s how most intellectuals have done it historically. This whole degree thing is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Second, you don’t just write fancy. Poets and propagandists write fancy. You analyze, organize, and marshal your arguments clearly. You cannot fool me. You are an intellectual construction worker.
Ha! Outed.
Related people are often born that way; some are related through affiliation because of the choices made by others rather than their own choice.
Born related? That’s immutable. For instance, a father might voluntarily relinquish parental status; but he remains the dad of his children for laws on marriage, incest, and intestate, for a few examples. Indeed, if the child was given up for adoption he remains responsible for support — until an adoption has been completed.
Yet is it not the conclusory statement of SSMers here at FSB that related people must be banned from SSM? Yes, it is. This is supposed to be an essential feature of SSM because, they say, SSM would make unrelated persons of the same sex each other’s closest kin. They do not say why SSM law cannot simply recognize two adults as closest kin already for the purpose of their gaining the benefits of SSM. And, when related people are not closest kin, what is the rationale for banning them from SSM?
It cannot be about the prospect of incestuous sexual behavior under the guise of an SSM license. Afterall, the nonsexual relationship of two homosexual persons of the same sex is banned; as is the nonsexual relationship of two heterosexual persons of the same sex. These types of relationshps are banned just because of what is commonly an immutable characteristic: being related.
On the other hand, the marriage idea entails the provision for responsible procreation whereby the parent-child relationship — one-sexed or two-sexed — is protected in the first instance by the marital presumption of paternity. It is a legal presumption that is highly dependable even when challenged under the rules of rebuttal on a case-by-case basis. The union of the sexes embodies the affiliation of the families of the bride and the groom just as their sexual union provides for the unity of mom and dad and their children. It is this unity that would be undermined if not for the laws that govern eligiblity based on relatedness.
That does not fit the SSM idea.
When it comes to the number limit, well, the challenge for SSMers is to first deal with the same-sex scenario and justification, if any, for banning some same-sex couples. Afterall, polygamous-like SSM would be a series of twosomes, not one big group with each person SSM’d to every other person in the group. Some couples would be banned from SSM — but what is at the core of the SSM idea that dictates such a ban?
The challenge begins with justifying the ban by looking at the SSM idea itself rather than searching outside of SSM — such as the “it’s too complex” technocratic anti-rights talk. If there is justification on offer, then, it must survive the same rules of argumentation that SSMers have applied when attacking, for instance, procreation as the basis for eligiblity/ineligiblity. That is, if something is not madatary then it cannot be a legitimate basis for line-drawing; if it is not enforced with no exceptions, actual or apprehended, then, it is illegimate as a basis for banning some people. It cannot stand on tradition alone: so a tradition of romantic monogamy would not survive as a basis for marriage lawmaking.
Then, and only then, if the SSMers have offered justification for bans, and have demonstrated that this justification survives their own rules, okay, let’s see how it applies to the two-sexed scenario.
That is the fair approach. Pointing at problems arising from polygamy rather than polygamous-like SSM is the arse-backwards way of approaching the SSM idea and its consequences for the limit of one-SSM-at-a-time.
Chairm- consiguinity applies equally to everyone, so it does not violate equal protection or due process. Infertile straight related couples are and have always been banned from marriage. Also “arse backwards”? What that really necessary? What country do live in anyway?
Why should relatedness apply at all to the one-sexed scenario?
It cannot be about incestuous procreation between people of the same-sex, surely.
it cannot be about incestuous sexual behavior since same-sex sexual behavior is not mandatory for those who’d SSM. And the ban wouldn’t stop people from incestuous sexual behavior outside of SSM, anyway. What’s the point, really, of this ban?
People not even interested in same-sex sexual behavior and people not capable of it are banned from SSM just because they are related.
Please stick with the same-sex scenario. Justify the ban on related same-sex twosomes. Why deny them the closest kin status that you have demanded for other same-sex twosomes who are allowed to SSM?
Christopher, why would you sexualize a common expression for doing something the wrong way?
Why should relatedness apply at all to the one-sexed scenario?
Incest is not just about the physical harm that can result from a narrow gene pool. It’s also about the psychological harm and change in family dynamics when family members are also thought of as potential sexual partners. That why folks are understandably squicked out when, for example, stepfathers marry their stepdaughters (after divorcing mom). (looking at you, Woody).
La Lubu, it is not a legal requrirement that those who’d SSM must engage in, or even have an interest in, a sexual type of relationship. At least, not anyplace that has put SSM into law.
Using the pro-SSM reasoning offered regarding procreation, this must mean that same-sex sexual behavior is not an essential of the type of relationship that people have in mind when they advocate for SSM. Sure, it might be your personal view but it is not in the law and is not a legitimate basis for drawing lines of eligilbity to SSM.
Marriage, on the other hand, is indeed a sexual union of husband and wife. See the sexual basis of the marital presumption of paternity to which all who enter marriage give their consent as a twosome. This is expressed also in the sexual basis for consummation, adultery-divorce, and provisions for annulment. It is a two-sexed sexual basis in each of these legal requirements of marriage in our legal system.
No, it is a two-person sexual basis. In states where SSM is legal, the status quo (legally) has not changed with regard to your examples.
Chairm: “See the sexual basis of the marital presumption of paternity to which all who enter marriage give their consent as a twosome. This is expressed also in the sexual basis for consummation, adultery-divorce, and provisions for annulment”
I have a hard time seeing any of these features of marriage as being “essential” to marriage; all of them have been challenged as outdated and unreliable.
Phil, you are mistaken. What is the sexual action that is in common with the all-male and the all-female type of SSMs? Coital relations is two-sexed. The two-sexed nature of humankind provides the sexual basis for sexual consummation and, not by mere chance, also for adultery and for the marital presumption of paternity.
No all-male and no all-female arrangement can consent, by default, to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity. And, given SSM argumentation’s insistence that procreation is not at the core of marriage, SSMers have removed the basis for society legally presuming that those who’d SSM give their consent to co-parent (through whatever means of attaining children). That would be an add-on outside of the SSM idea and outside of the marriage idea.
If the marital presumption of paternity is mimicked in SSM, that would be an arbitrary imposition all round.
* * *
Chris, lots of stuff gets challenged. But the marital presumption of paternity is very reliable even when challenged in courtrooms. And it is one of the most vigorously enforced legal presumptions in our legal system. The first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as part of a procreative duo, is responsible for the children we create together — this responsiblity is not merely after the fact but also before the facts of conception and birth; and the coherent set of principles known as responsible procreation apply long after the children have matured and gone on to have and raise their own children.
Are the challenges? Sure. But that does not negate the simple fact that the marriage law requires consent to all the the marital types of relationship entails. It is not a condtional relationship. Those who enter the social institution consent to the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity.
No one-sexed arrangement, no matter how much you might challenge this point, can give consent due to the lack of the other sex in the sex-segregative type of relationship SSMers have in mind with their homosexual emphasis in these discussions.