Folks like Joan Walsh at Salon and Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post have taken the 44th anniversary (June 12) of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case which struck down state prohibitions against blacks marrying whites, to puff a new video by the “dynamic duo” of Ted Olson and David Boies (co-councils in California’s Prop 8 case) lecturing us all on how that truly nasty injustice then is the precise injustice gay and lesbian couples face today. This is a very persuasive argument, not because of its logic, but solely for the emotionalism it stirs. The two have nearly nothing in common.
Segregation was a profound social evil. Full stop. Marriage as an exclusive heterosexual union is a necessary social good. It is why all cultures since earliest days, regardless of religion, law, or culture, have marriage as only between men and women.
Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation, that was wholly racist at its core. As the court observed, the Virginia law was about “the absolute prohibition of a ‘white person’ marrying other than another ‘white person’.” It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies. If the Loving analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort.
As David Blankenhorn sagely pointed out in his book, The Future of Marriage, some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about — racial purity — when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering.
Additionally, striking down bans on interracial marriage affirmed marriage by saying that any woman could marry any man, clearing the way for letting marriage do what it is supposed to do — solving the universal human paradox of sexual embodiment in bringing male and female together. Same-sex marriage redefines marriage — stating that male and female are merely optional for the family and that motherhood and fatherhood are only sentimental in their meaning.
And on the note of mothers and fathers, it is a very different thing for a child to say “I have a white father and black mother” than “I have two moms.” There is scant research indicating that inter-racial parenting is developmentally harmful to children, but literally hundreds — if not thousands — of strong published studies show how negatively children are hindered physically, emotionally, educationally, and socially when they are denied being raised by their own mother and father, which is exactly what every same-sex home does by definition.
This regular refrain of comparison is not just mistaken. It is a flat wrong. And not just logically, but morally. It is insidious — a pernicious poisoning of the well of civil discourse — because it powerfully implies that those who oppose same-sex marriage today are merely the most modern version of the bigotry, close-mindedness and hatred that fueled racial segregation of yesterday. As one who takes those injustices very seriously, the comparison is deeply offensive to opponent of same-sex marriage. Its stench is repulsive.
— Glenn T. Stanton is the director for Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family and author of Secure Daughters, Confident Sons.
Glenn,
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes segregation was wrong, but you pretend that we Americans all agree that marriage is an unqualified social good. We do, they don't. They think it is an oppressive christianist construct intended to keep women in their place and force sodomites into the shadows. It is part of the Left's overall desire to destroy society and remake it to conform to the dreams of the UC Berkeley social sciences department.
We cannot argue with the Godless Left on logical or moral grounds. They have neither logic nor morals. We simply have to defeat them on the political (and judicial) field, which is where this battle is now being fought.
Ted Olson...the sympathy chits for this POS have been exhausted.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat makes inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage similar is that it doesn't affect you. If you don't approve of either kind of marriage, don't be in one. But you have no legitimate interest in stopping your neighbors from having one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWrong. Society has an interest in marriage, which is why we license marriages. Marriage is a public institution, not merely a private arrangement.
If society has no interest, or it is merely a private matter, then there's no reason to license.
Society has no interest in same-sex relationships.
In any case, do you really only care about issues which affect you personally? Are you really that self-centered?
Finally, no one is stopping same-sex couples from having any private arrangement they desire. At issue is whether society is required to officially recognize and affirm those arrangements. It is not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"At issue is whether society is required to officially recognize and affirm those arrangements. It is not."
Thankfully, you are not the final arbiter of what society is required to do. Society is. And society is clearly moving in the direction of official recognition and affirmation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether society does something, and whether we're required to do something, are two different questions. That really should be obvious.
Whether society is moving in a particular direction, and whether it's a good direction, are also two separate questions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeanB: your comment is just silly. Most people on the Left, like most people on the Right, care deeply about strengthening the institution of marriage. Speaking for myself (product of a single parent home, for whatever that is worth), I am a liberal, and know plenty of others, who supports stricter divorce laws, at least when minor children are involved. Marriage is a crucially important part of a stable society, as any reasonable person will agree. So stop acting as if every liberal is a caricature of the Berkeley hippie circa 1969.
The evidence cited about children having poorer outcomes when "not raised by their biological mother and father" compares children born into two-parent homes against children born into the familiar social pathologies--out-of-wedlock birth, poverty, single parents, unstable home lives--exactly the sorts of ills that marriage helps remedy. If two gay people wish to form a more stable bond between themselves, and choose to raise children in that home life they have created, why should you oppose it?
There is no evidence that children raised in a stable home by two parents of the same gender have any worse outcomes--I mean it, no evidence whatsoever. I happen to be a medical student going into pediatrics, and so I have read much of the relevant literature. The evidence claimed by opponents of same-s*x marriage about children just doesn't exist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> The evidence claimed by opponents
> of same-s*x marriage about
> children just doesn't exist.
Which will not ever stop them from trumpeting it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...familiar social pathologies--out-of-wedlock birth..."
The term "out-of-wedlock birth" ceases to have any meaning when society announces, as the proponents of redefining marriage wish, that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.
"Marriage is a crucially important part of a stable society..."
Why? If we're merely talking about a s_xual relationship between two consenting adults (or more, the number two only has meaning because there are two genders), what is society's interest in that at all, let alone anything crucially important?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut that's just my point--marriage has everything to do with the raising of children, that is the entire basis of the state's interest in the institution of marriage! Marriage is much more than just codifying "a s*xual relationship between consenting adults".
By allowing a gay couple to marry, society is making that relationship more stable/more co-dependent (economically, socially, emotionally, etc), which makes it more likely to last and thus better suited to the purpose of raising children. If your objection is simply that adoption/a sperm donor/surrogate mother is necessary to enable a same-s*x couple to raise children--what does that matter? Is there some evidence that adoptive parents/stepmothers and stepfathers are lesser parents than biological ones?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was very disappointed by this Mr. Stanton's post. He first complains that others are using emotion rather than logic for their arguments but then largely fails to use logic himself, preferring to talk about things like the "ugliness" or racial segregation (why can't treatment of homosexuals be "ugly" too?).
I think the real problem we're facing is the question of what "equal protection of laws" means when dealing with people who are biologically different. Can the government treaty people differently... if their noses are bigger? ...if their hair is darker? ...if they're capable of lifting 100 pounds? ...if they're physically enabled or disabled (by giving them better parking)? ...if they're capable of working together to have children? ...if they're capable of performing the mother role in making children?
Conservatives seem to have decided pretty firmly that biological differences that may be consider racial should not be something the government uses to determine treatment of people, but that gender differences (which are far more significant both biologically and socially) are something the government may use (but not overuse). Liberals seem far more confused on these issues.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe that there are legitimate arguments on why the marriage shouldn't be conveyed upon same sex couples, but this post is devoid of any of them. It's a series of fallacies of false equivalence,begging the question and appeals to tradition.
"Marriage as an exclusive heterosexual union is a necessary social good. It is why all cultures since earliest days, regardless of religion, law, or culture, have marriage as only between men and women."
Here, the author begs the question with an appeal to tradition. Why is heterosexual union a necessary social good? Because we've always thought it has been of course. Historically, many cultures have supported polygamy and marriage between adults and children, but I doubt we'd support those solely because they've been done.
"Additionally, striking down bans on interracial marriage affirmed marriage by saying that any woman could marry any man, clearing the way for letting marriage do what it is supposed to do — solving the universal human paradox of sexual embodiment in bringing male and female together."
The universal human paradox of sexual embodiment? Marriage, in no form whatsoever, solves the universal human paradox of sexual embodiment. To be quite honest, I didn't know that was a problem that needed solving. It's begs the question, what did people do before the institution of marriage was established?
"There is scant research indicating that inter-racial parenting is developmentally harmful to children, but literally hundreds — if not thousands — of strong published studies show how negatively children are hindered physically, emotionally, educationally, and socially when they are denied being raised by their own mother and father, which is exactly what every same-sex home does by definition."
This is simply disingenuous to its base, and the author knows it in the way he phrases the statement. Yes, children can be negatively affected if they are denied being raised by THEIR OWN mother and father. But unless the authoring is arguing that married gay couples will begin going to the villages stealing children from their loving parents, this statement is completely void of any value in the discussion.
There people who have already made up their mind on gay marriage, but there are many people who are still undecided on the topic, as recent polls have shown. Authors like the one above do nothing advance the argument that marriage should be status uniquely held by heterosexual couples, and it's why the tradition of marriage as it exist today will automatically change. For better or worse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Why is heterosexual union a necessary social good? Because we've always thought it has been of course."
Not because we've thought so, but because it IS so. The fact that there have been failed variations (polygamy, child marriages) shows that the basic definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) should not be tampered with. The authors point is that interracial couples don't violate that basic condition and so shouldn't be used to justify gay marriage (which DOES violate it).
"Yes, children can be negatively affected if they are denied being raised by THEIR OWN mother and father. But unless the authoring is arguing that married gay couples will begin going to the villages stealing children from their loving parents, this statement is completely void of any value in the discussion."
Yeah! because that's what we're worried about: Gays stealing our children. Nice straw-man. What part of "mother and father" is difficult to understand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow. Ok. Fine. I'll put it this way:
There are some very good reasons why exit polling shows nearly no support for pro-gay agenda referendum items from black voters.
Black is the new black , the old black, and the only black. Their American experience is unique.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAmending my earlier post for clarity: Conservatives have decided that racial differences cannot be used for different treatment by the government, but gender and other differences may be used for different treatment by the government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Jason:
"What makes inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage similar is that it doesn't affect you."
We can think of other arrangements for which that is true, starting with polygamy.
The logical endpoint of your argument isn't merely the radical redefinition of marriage, but the elimination of any definition. After all, if you don't approve of marriages involving cadavers or inanimate objects, don't be in one. But you have no legitimate interest in stopping your neighbors from having one.
--
@Wampeter:
You write, "Marriage is a crucially important part of a stable society, as any reasonable person will agree."
Indeed, but WHY is it important to society?
The answer is obvious: society enshrines marriage to regulate procreation, to create stable home environments in which children are born and raised.
As a medical student you surely don't need me to explain where children come from, or to explain that NO arrangement of two members of the same sex can EVER result in children.
To extend the legal definition of marriage to such couples is to sever the already fraying tie between marriage and procreation.
You ask, "If two gay people wish to form a more stable bond between themselves, and choose to raise children in that home life they have created, why should you oppose it?"
I wonder, where would those children come from? However admirable their parenting skills are, they're not possibly raising their OWN biological children; their relationship is quite clearly not procreative, and so it makes as much sense to call that relationship a marriage as it would, say, two old-maid sisters who decide to care for the orphaned children of their now-dead sister. Those sisters "wish to form a more stable bond between themselves, and choose to raise children in that home life they have created," and one can praise them for their commitment to child rearing and each other without pretending that their family arrangement involves a marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "The logical endpoint of your argument isn't merely the radical redefinition of marriage, but the elimination of any definition."
Marx would agree. Karl, that is. Groucho would be like, "What the hell are we even talking about this for?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"We can think of other arrangements for which that is true, starting with polygamy."
Ten people being taxed like two people does, in fact, affect me. Equality means treating each person equally, it doesn't mean treating three people the same as two people. That is literally inequality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo then: as long tax policy accounts for the number of people in a group marriage, you have no philosophical objection to an infintely malleable definition of the term.
Glad to know that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse