Three headlines in today’s NYTs:
For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage
Young Mothers Describe Marriage’s Fading Allure
In Maryland, House Passes Bill to Let Gays Wed
I’m not here saying, and I don’t believe that current evidence can definitively show, that these trends are in some ways connected. And no, I’m not blaming gay people for what straight people are (foolishly, in my view) doing. But I am saying that, for anyone wondering what’s going on with marriage in America today, you need to read all three of these stories and think hard. Â
Categories: Marriage
When did the creation or presence of children become such a key component of marriage? Is reproductive ability or intent suddenly becoming important, as a mechanism to exclude gay couples? That’s what I think. Everyone knows that there is no legal requirement to reproduce, in order to get or stay married. And there are plenty of childless married couples, the validity of whose marriages no one questions. I’ve attended many weddings and never heard a marriage vow exchange that referred in any way to children. Either couples are getting married for the “wrong” reasons or they don’t know what marriage is for. Which points out an important issue: that you can get married for whatever purpose so long as you meet the eligibility requirements.
The anti-gays love to talk about the purpose of marriage as if defining (or redefining) that purpose will require excluding gay and lesbian couples. But the truth is, people can get married for any reason, or no reason at all. And those reasons can apply equally to gay couples.
I think when you’re advocating a public policy that denies a fundamental right to a specific minority and, worse in my mind, makes children worse off than they have to be (yes, gay couples do raise children, whether you approve of it or not), the burden is on you to create a convincing argument for your position. So far, the anti-gays have failed miserably at that. Instead, they have teamed up with the homophobes, straight supremacists and religionists to create a voting block that can keep marriage away from gay couples. Certainly, the KKK could have done the same thing 50 years ago with inter-racial marriage. Insisting that people vote on this issue is tantamount to saying that it’s appropriate to tap into people’s hates and fears for deciding the legal rights of a minority. Shameful.
Barry: I very much appreciate and agree with your comments. One sentence particularly struck me. You say:
I can see how you see it that way, but as someone who was in that room, so to speak, I can tell you that almost to a person, none of us in the final analysis felt that we had any choice. It happened not because but despite anything we said or tried to do.
I stayed out of this debate for years, and had ZERO desire to join it and a very powerful desire to avoid it, but eventually it hunted me down, just like it hunted down so many of my colleagues who, like me, were fully engaged, and had been for years, in what was then the mainstream marriage debate, and who absolutely did NOT want to get pulled into an all-consuming debate on this one topic. But it happened, and there was nothing that any of us could do about it.
Two quick personal vignettes. One, it’s about 2003 or 2004. I’m spending nearly all of my time wandering around the country being a jukebox for the idea that fathers matter and children need fathers. (My first book was called Fatherless America.) A reporter from USA Today, an old friend, calls me up to say that Professor whosit says that current social science evidence proves that children don’t need fathers; any old “parents” wil do. Says all the research. I am incredulous. I start citing studies, ranting and railing like a loon. Who on earth would say such an outrageous thing, and why? Well, the reporter explains, Professor whosit is making the case for gay marriage; and this is part of the case; and this quote about children not needing fathers is going in tomorrow’s paper, and do I have a comment? Long pause. Very long pause. I am thinking: Am I about to get sucked into an argument about gay marriage here? The very LAST thing that I want or need? Shouldn’t I just say, no comment, keep my head down and stay out of this mess? But the other part of my is thinking: Some dissembler with a Ph.D. is saying in a national paper that children don’t need fathers, and I am supposed to be the guy who cites the studies showing that children need fathers, and I have NO COMMENT? So I made a comment. And that, Barry, was the very first time that I spoke publicly on the issue of gay marriage. That’s what I mean when I say, hunted down.
Second story. It’s also about 2002 or 2003. We are having a big conference — the centerpiece of our program that year — in Washington D.C. on the state of marriage in the US and what can be done to strengthen marriage. We have all kinds of speakers and topics, and not one speaker and not one topic is even remotely about gay marriage or gay issues. A prominent reporter from the Washington Post spends the whole day at the event. The next day, the headline in the Post says (this may not be absolutey verbatim, but this gist of the headline was): “Marriage Group Refuses to Discuss Gay Marriage.” And about half of the article consisted of people calling us cowards for ducking the most important marriage issue of this or any other day. That’s what I mean by, hunted down — if we say something about gay marriage, the story is gay marriage; if say nothing about gay marriage, the story is about gay marriage.
Believe me, I’m not whining and I am not seeking sympathy, or anyting like it. I’m just telling you fyi how it (subjectively) felt to me and I suspect to others at the time in what you call “the so-called pro-marriage community.”
But David, they have a point. SSM families are *not* like single parent families in several important respects, not the least of which is that there is no difference in outcomes between SSM families and heterosexual nuclear families. Yet the “pro-marriage” set (yourself included) want to *deny* marriage to SSM families.
Meanwhile, the “pro-marriage” crowd is generally not opposed to consequent marriage and stepfamilies for heterosexuals—not the *best* case scenario in their eyes, but far superior to single parenting. Moreover, while the “pro-marriage” set is generally opposed to any form of public policy that could aid single-parent families (seeing this as “encouraging” single parenthood), they are very much in favor of public expenditures to….basically cheerlead for marriage. Cheerlead, but no expenditures for material aid (like universal daycare) that could actually make a tremendous positive difference for *everyone’s* family (because that would “encourage single parenthood).
I’m not alone in seeing this as a contradiction. I’m also not alone in noticing that the most enthusiastic of the pro-marriage crowd are politically very much against the laws that made the lives of millions of people better—that took us from being absolute second-class citizens closer to equality. Some of the pro-marriage websites that have been cited on this blog are anti-contraception and anti-feminist. They really don’t want women to have the same opportunities and choices as men. And if you disagree? Well, you must be a “radical feminist” or “communist” or “godless” or whatever.
In short—their message is a package deal. It is a radically different vision of marriage than that held by most people. And they wonder why they aren’t finding a bigger audience?
This is wrong. There absolutely was something you could have done about it, and you and the “pro-marriage” community, by and large, didn’t do it.
I realize you don’t actually mean to imply that it is the fault of SSM supporters that you’ve found yourself debating this topic over the past decade, or that this debate has been “all-consuming.” Obviously, you know that the person responsible for the fallout from the positions you have taken is you.
JeffreyR05, I happen to think this is the most plausible explanation for the “marriage is about reproduction to the exclusion of all else” rationale. It just wasn’t a serious issue until SSM became a realistic possibility.
I think its nostalgia. That is the real reason
Phil: Your resort to accusing me and others of bad faith — we may claim that it’s about one thing, but in fact for us it’s only “a mechanism for excluding gay couples” — is cheap and unworthy. The fact that this tactic is completely normal in today’s political discourse doesn’t make it any less reprehensible. It’s easy to accuse anyone of bad faith. Maybe you, Phil, leave comments on this blog, not because you believe your comments to be valid or worthy of consideration, but because you are lonely and afraid and desperately crave human contact. See how easy that is? Once this form of accusation becomes the game, anyone can play.
And yes, you are right, there is something we could have done. We could have said things we don’t believe. That would have saved us an awful lot of trouble, I’m sure. Look how well it’s working for President Obama. He and I, for example, happen to have pretty much identical positions (yes to civil unions, no to gay marriage) but he largely gets a bye, mainly I think because people realize that he’s stating a belief that he doesn’t really have. Maybe we all should have thought of that earlier!
David – Obama opposed Prop 8 – before it passed. You support and work the existing “fundamental rights” of one group of people be taken away by public vote. That is truly hideous, it will forever be part of your life, as it should be. Imagine trying to explain it to a gay close realtive or family friend in 10 or 20 years. The dye is cast on that and you cast it yourself.
“hunted you down”? Do you really want to say you were hunted down to a gay man? (have you been called a fag or been physically assaulted because you are gay? I have. I’ll bet Barry has too. And I know Fannie has.). Harvey Milk was hunted down. Matthew Shepard was hunted down. Tyler Clementi was hunted down. You were asked about an issue you were not best pleased to comment on. I understand you didn’t think that comment through, but you understand how revolting it is to tell people who still have to fear for thier safety in thier own country because of their sexual orientation that you were “hunted down”?
As a matter of substance, marriage equality is here and it’s not going away (it passed in Maryland today btw). My sense from you and Elizabeth is “we” can’t talk about child needing mothers and fathers after marriage equality is enacted. Well – a very sincere question – here it is, it’s certainly not going away – you dint talking about kids needing thier bio parents do you? How do you do it in world we have now (where gay couples are marrying)?
I will give you a call if you’ll take it. (let me reiterate here that I bear no ill will, have no desire to “administer abuse” to you – that’s a creepy thought actually. ugh.). But you do seem to want to rewrite or ignore the hostory of all this and your part in it. That I won’t let happen, nor do I think will let that happen.
Last phrase should read “nor will history let that happen”.
As far as bad faith, David, when you work against the fundamental rights of gay people – “fundamental right” as a description comes from SCOTUS not me – and then do nothing to actually help the people you harm (however regretfully) you invite people to assume bad faith on your part. The time has come in the history of this where protestations are hard to believe without action. There are many opportunities to support gay people in many of the ways you say you support aside from marriage: ENDA, anti-bullying, Dadt repeal, civil unions, etc.
In my earlier post, I was casting about for the term “marriage movement” and my mind drew a blank. I used the term “pro-marriage” instead, but I don’t like ceding that term to people who oppose SSM, for obvious reasons. So I said “so-called pro marriage” instead, which I now regret doing, because it’s a scornful sounding phrase. Sorry about that, everyone.
* * *
David, that’s funny about how you felt pushed into anti-SSM advocacy. I can definitely see how that happens, and I think life tends to be like that in all sorts of fields (it’s not like I set out to be a kid’s cartoonist, it’s just sort of how things worked out).
At the same time, some of those decisions people have to take responsibility for, as I’m sure you’ll agree. I doubt anyone made you write your book about SSM; no one made Maggie become the head of NOM.
Regarding the centrality of biological reproduction to marriage, I don’t think there’s any bad faith on your part, David — but I do think there’s motivated reasoning.
The truth is, anyone looking at the documents of the marriage movement from before the Goodridge decision can see that prior to SSM becoming a reality, the marriage movement thought that children were an important reason for society to support marriage — but not the only reason society has to support marriage. And the emphasis on heterosexual reproduction (and hence the exclusion of gay parents from the group of parents whose children would benefit from marriage) is almost entirely new since 1994, except for the folks in the rather incomprehensible Robert George wing of the movement.
Two extremely prominent examples of what I mean: Maggie Gallagher’s 2001 book The Case For Marriage talks about many benefits of marriage for society. Although she and her co-author certainly described the way marriage benefits children, they gave equal emphasis to many other benefits, and explicitly denied the argument that marriage would be pointless if not for children.
Another is The Marriage Movement: A Statement Of Principles (pdf link), put out by IAV in 2000. Check out in particular the “six dimensions of marriage” on page 8 — note that only one of the six dimensions — number six — includes anything about children at all.
The document as a whole definitely makes “marriage is good for children” a major argument — but the view of marriage in “MMSoP” is much more multidimensional and sympathetic to adult needs than what we’ve seen from the Marriage Movement in the years since it became obvious that same-sex marriage was actually happening.
Franky, if a lesbian or gay person published those same “six dimensions” tomorrow, I’d expect many folks in the Marriage Movement to dismiss them as selfishly adult-centric.
I don’t think that’s an example of conscious bad faith. I do think it’s a fair example of arguments shifting over time, in a way which makes it conspicuously easier to argue that lesbian and gay folks should be excluded from marriage.
David, I believe that the trope–that reproductive ability, specifically the ability to conceive children with your partner, is the key component to marriage–absolutely arose as a response to the suddenly-realistic possibility of same-sex marriage, and that it has been, and is being, used as a mechanism to exclude gay couples.
I also believe that I am right about this.
So, you’re offended that I think this? Or you’re just offended that I said it? Do you want me to lie about it? What is the point of your comment, David?
By your own admission, you’ve written chapters on the subject of why reproductive ability is sufficient reason to exclude every gay couple from getting married, but not a sufficient reason to exclude any straight couples from marriage.
Perhaps I’ve missed something in your extensive writings where you brought up inability to conceive and cited it as a reason to ban a straight couple from getting married? Have I?
If not, then where the hell does your “bad faith” criticism come from? Have you ever cited or called for procreative ability to be a mechanism to prevent a straight couple from marrying?
Perhaps you believe that I’ve called you dishonest. If that’s the case, you are misinterpreting my statement. First, I did not single out you or any particular person in my brief comment. Second, you act as though the only possible way that someone can use a rationale to unfairly justify their behavior is through deceit. I don’t think that’s the case. It could also be because of ignorance, or a lack of logic, or a failure to understand the ramifications of their argument.
And, lest you feel inspired to get the vapors again and call me reprehensible for implying that you are illogical–please, take a breath, step back, and think. I believe that you are wrong, but you already knew that. Lots of commenters believe that you are wrong. The act of disagreeing with you automatically communicates that we think there is something wrong in your thinking–be it logic, prejudice, or some other element that is causing you to arrive at a wrong conclusion. There is no need for you to jump to the conclusion that you’re being called a liar, and your tactic of being offended and accusing me of acting in bad faith–which is what you just did–is inappropriate. (It’s also comedically ironic, since you obviously think I’m wrong, too.)
David, you could have advocated that we treat gay couples the same way we treat heterosexual couples, under the law, no matter what you believe. Your beliefs don’t enter into it; it’s your actions that matter. My neighbor believes it’s wrong to shop on a Sunday. That’s her business. If she advocated that the law should ban me from shopping on Sunday, then it’s my business to, and the repercussions that she might feel would be the result of her actions, not her beliefs.
When asked, earlier in this thread, about the difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples, you pointed out only the way that gay couples are different from the subset of heterosexual couples who can conceive a child together. But gay couples belong to the subset of all couples who cannot conceive a child together, and that subset includes millions of heterosexual couples whose marriage rights you, personally, support.
You, as you say, have already dealt with this obvious and glaring contradiction in countless forums, and devoted pages and pages to explaining it. And you did so, in my opinion, not in a logical and rational way, but by coming up with a pretext to include heterosexual couples and exclude gay couples.
Some gay men don’t come out until late in life. Are they all lying, prior to coming out? Not necessarily. Some of them might have been lying, sure. Some of them genuinely believed they just hadn’t met the right girl (for example.) Our brains do mysterious things. We don’t always think clearly, even about the things that we think about often.
The reason that you came up with a pretext that justified excluding homosexual couples is arguably none of my business, David. I can’t look into your soul and discern your true motives, any more than I could look at your birth certificate and the birth certificate of your wife and discern whether the two of you ought to be married.
On the other hand, you do hold the political belief that you can look at my birth certificate and that of my significant other and determine whether the two of us ought to be married. That might sound like an oversimplification of your political view on the subject, but it is not. The fact that your stance on this, and your very public advocacy and activism, has caused you repercussions over the years and come to overshadow your other work is no one’s fault but your own, David. When you were called for a quotation, years ago, about the need for fathers, you could have said, “My research indicates that fathers are very important, but my research didn’t deal with same-sex couples.” You didn’t. Please do not insult me by suggesting that I’m treating you unfairly.
Christopher, I feel I should mention — since you imply I’m gay — that I’m not gay. I was “questioning” as a young guy, then I identified as bi for a while, then asexual for a while. Now I’m not even sure what I am. I live in a permanent relationship with my two partners (one male, one female), but it’s not a sexual relationship.
I don’t have any objection to people thinking I’m gay (happens all the time, and I almost never say anything), but I’m worrying that if I let you continue thinking I’m gay, you might feel I’ve deceived you, and I definitely don’t want that.
That said, I’ve been physically assaulted and threatened for being perceived as gay. So your post was technically correct, as far as that goes.
I’m not sure that being sensitive to a phrase like “hunted down” really makes sense in this context. I suspect what’s going on here is that you’re angry at the injustice David supports being perpetuated on you and people like you, and justifiably so. (And I also think it right that David should have to face your anger. That’s a very reasonable price for him to pay for his advocacy.)
But I think your anger leads you into not being willing to give David an ordinary benefit of the doubt — not even over a common English phrase like “hunted down,” which is used in hundreds of contexts.
The problem is, as much as I’m on your side on policy matters — when it comes to SSM, I think David is not only mistaken but supporting a terrible injustice, and I think you’re 100% correct both on policy and in being angry — I do think that your tendency to see the worse in David, whatever he says, makes discussion across policy lines more difficult.
Are you open to the idea that — even though justice is definitely on your side, and you absolutely have a right to your anger — your behavior here is in some ways flawed and makes having discussions more difficult?
Barry: Thanks for your comments. I certainly never meant to imply that we are not responsible for our own actions. Of course we are. I was just trying to relate how a certain situation felt subjectively. As for whether or not my reasoning is “motivated,” as you put it, by prior ideological convictions, well, I suppose it is, at least to some degree. I suspect that yours is, too. It strikes me that this is probably a part of the human condition (“we see through a glass, darkly”). A philosopher said, tuth is objective, but our only access to it is subjective. To be continued, I’m sure.
Barry, Everyone is flawed always, we are imperfect beings all of us. Now I think you’re suggesting I’d catch more proverbial flies with honey or if butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth. I’ve been on this site regularly for two years and I have to say that approached with David. (David seems to think I’m new here – it’s actually been years and I’ve been talking with Elizabeth offline for months.).
Let’s get down to brass tacks. Is it possible to have a conversation here?
If we can’t agree that denying or stripping a fundamental right from a group of people is a huge burden to place on them – legal and social.
Or that opining in favor of in the LA Times, or testifying for, Prop 8 is intervening against the rights of gay people (however well intentioned the reason)
Or that homophobia in the marriage debate breeds and feeds homophobia in general and that that must be stopped, or lessened for the sake of the Tyler Clementis of the country.
AND most importantly that if you are part of the effort that works to keep gay people from marriage rights and you say you are in favor of gay rights that you have a responsibility to do something about it.
When does the time come to support the people that you harm? When the time is past and the debate is over?
If David can’t address those issues – I don’t expect him to change his mind on marriage and in fact I don’t care if he does or not but to not address or in some cases be aware of the effects of his work is too much for me. No serious discussion of this can be had without acknowledging the lives and experience of gay couples. David testified in the Perry case and I’d wager he didn’t even listen to the testimony from the four plaintiffs or can even name them.