David: This is not altogether in my wheelhouse, as I don’t do much by way of what could be called grassroots fighting on abortion or gay marriage, but I see it differently. I think, broadly speaking, Americans strongly tend to, perhaps even always, move in the direction of expanding “rights.” This is why abolition, womens’ suffrage, civil rights, the ADA all succeeded in the end.
And it’s why virtually all reform groups on the right and the left try to shape their arguments in terms of rights whenever possible. The very term “entitlement” is a marketing innovation to make welfare into “a right not a privilege” as the old welfare activists used to say. As that suggests, sometimes what passes for rights are not rights in the classical sense or even in a logical sense. Health care is not a right. But if you tell Americans that it is long enough, eventually many of them will believe it. Ditto: education, housing, etc. One of the problems with young people today — particularly of the Occupy Wall Street variety — is that if they want something badly enough they come to believe they deserve it. And in an entitlement culture, if you feel like you deserve something you think you have a right to it.
When it comes to gay marriage and abortion, regardless of the merits behind the various arguments, I think the gay-marriage advocates have largely won the battle of casting their cause as a rights issue. It is certainly the strongest argument for gay marriage whether you’re ultimately persuaded by it or not.
Abortion’s a tougher case to cast as a straightforward rights issue, even if the “reproductive rights” forces insist it’s crystal clear. The right to life trumps the right to choose, at least for many people.
Again, I don’t want to rehearse what are obviously well-worn arguments, but if you oppose same-sex marriage it seems to me that you have to deal with opponents’ strongest arguments not their weakest ones.
Agreed. America is trending libertarian and while it is nit difficult to show that abortion violates the no-harm principle, it is impossible to do so with same-sex marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePlus, once we allow legal gender-change, with or without surgery, opposition to same-sex marriage is mooted.
And this is a good thing that won't cause all sorts of mess? When we have high school boys claiming to be "girls" and going into the girls restroom? etc etc etc . . . Seriously, even conservatives who are supposedly so wary of the media can be brainwashed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah,
As you point out the concept of "rights" has (sadly) become nearly meaningless in our day and I think there are many good arguments out there that gays aren't being denied any rights whatsoever. I won't hash into them all beyond saying we don't have a right to marry ANYONE we want. I cannot for example, marry my sister, yet no "right" is being violated.
I also don't quite see how Mr. French was addressing the weakest arguments of SSM. He didn't really dive into the rights issue in that post because that wasn't its subject. Also, I know many marriage advocates spend considerable time and writing trying to debunk the notion that they are against anyone's "rights". You're right that it is an uphill battle, especially with the majority of the media working against them, but plenty of marriage supporters are addressing it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah,
These may not be in your wheelhouse, but may I encourage you to spend more time thinking through/engaging with these issues? You're a fine thinker and writer; in short, we need you. These issues -- life and the structure of family -- are foundational to everything else.
All the other political battles contended here at NRO stem in large measure from these. Would the stimulus and all the other governmental goodies have been such a large issue if we hadn't had decline in the family over the past decades, (ostensibly) necessitating a turn by so many to government largesse?
Every bit chipped away from our way of approaching life and the family profoundly affects public policy for years to come -- often in unexpected, unimaginable ways....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Jonah: In today's America, he who claims the ground of human rights automatically seizes the rhetorical high ground.
Tocqueville once observed that democracy, in time, creates democratic men. The same is true of rights. Rights talk has taken over our political discourse so completely that we hardly think about it.
And this is why, as Jonah observes, gay marriage has made such rapid progress. The first step that was required was the separation of marriage from procreation - that happened with the advent of contraception, then no fault divorce, then the sexual revolution - but once that basis was in place, the ground was ripe for a determined gay marriage campaign based on relentless rights claims. One party seemed to have a real "rights" claim. The other doesn't, or at least has not been able to articulate one well. I'd argue that there's a very good one to be made for a child's right to be brought up in a household with both mother and father wherever possible; but I concede it's a less straightforward argument, especially for a society where adults' rights always seem to trump those of children.
And this is why, ironically, the pro-life movement has had some success. Sure, ultrasounds have had a very, very big impact. But the pro-life movement started making more rhetorical progress once they cast it as a rights issue. It's pretty clear that a right is being infringed when a life is ended; indeed, it would be a slam dunk if the unborn were visibly out walking among us.
I expect current trends to continue: the terrain is going to get even bumpier for pro-abortion advocates; they will have to resort to even more evasive euphemisms to survive. And it's going to be ever harder on traditional marriage advocates, given the apparent views of Gen Yers. That's incongruous in some ways, but that's the messy social terrain we're moving into now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHoly cow, did Jonah just write, "the arc of history is long and it bends towards justice"? Never thought I would read it here, although I agree with his post. At the end of the day, social conservatives have failed to make their case that same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt does so because it renders the very definition of marriage to be meaningless.
The push for SSM rights is one to redefine marriage according to one's desire. After all, gays and lesbians have to right to marry...someone of the opposite sex.
But they do not desire that. So, the "right" to marry whomever one loves (and can consent to the marriage) becomes the defining quality pushed by the SSM rights crowd.
Problem is, "love and consent" can exist in many different combinations, combinations of which the mere mention will send SSM folks into a fit.
Polyamory, incest, and (if you're into animal rights) human/animal relations all suddenly qualify under the "love and consent" principle for marriage rights.
The nature of a definition is to limit. Once the definition of marriage can no longer be limited in any meaningful way, the the institution is fundamentally undermined.
A thing meant to be all things to all people winds up being nothing to anyone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is an argument that isn't going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree with it.
Maybe the path to human/animal relations was begun when they allowed interracial marriage or mixed faith marriage. Tell why exactly was this is wrong and then we will discuss the slippery slope arguments why gay marriage is going to lead to people marrying animals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour argument is wrong because SSM has nothing to do with procreation or with the provision of a committed mother and father for every potential child, whether natural or adopted -- but with adult gratification. As with your other examples.
But why not explain to us why a redefinition based on adult proclivities will *not* lead to polygamy, b*stiality, etc.?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLast time I checked gays can and do adopt. Would it not be better for them to be doing so in a situation that is stabilized by a marriage or something like it? Studies show children are better off in two parent households than one, they are better off growing up with two mommies than one.
So assuming a married woman and a man are unable to have children for whatever biological reason and they don't plan to adopt, can't it be assumed that their arrangement is for the sole purpose of adult gratification?
The problem with marrying and pleasuring yourself with an animal is animals, like children can't consent to it. So it is animal abuse.
The problem with polygamy is not that it is abusive to women, although it can be. The problem is if you allow men to marry more than one woman (and even if allow women to take more than one husband much fewer will exercise that privilege compared to men) we will have a problem of a few rich handsome men with multiple wives and and many men, maybe more than half the population, unable to find a spouse. The reason they got rid of polygamy laws is because is because marriage is good for most people to partake in and it gave more people an opportunity to partake in it that otherwise would not be able to.
Stop using the slippery slope argument, it's lazy and it does not convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will not argue against polygamy because frankly I think we are trending that way. But the argument against b*stiality is easy: animals by definition cannot consent. It is no longer a case of consensual adult behavior, it is instead a case of sexual abuse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suggest you google Peter Singer and his article "Heavy Petting" on this subject.
He reports in his articles that animals not only consent, but often initiate such activity.
In any event, to define marriage as an individual right, based on the individual's desire, is to define it into meaninglessness.
To the poster stating that this argument will not hold sway for those not already convinced, the fact that marriage is undermined is not made less so simply because some cannot or will not accept it. It is what it is. As I heard someone say years ago, "I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you." Besides, I'm not willing to accept the cynical view that everyone that disagrees is incapable of changing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again Jonah attempts to seem well-rounded when he's not. I thought conservatives believed in freedom and minimal government. Why should we care if gay people marry one another; how is someone outside of that relationship's life impacted? In other words, there is a very conservative argument for gay marriage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Well rounded, indeed!" - The Couch
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe gay marriage "rights" argument has never been rooted in "rights". It is and always has been rooted in the desire to claim BENEFITS. Anyone denying this fact is either deliberately trying to mislead or has been misled themselves. All "rights" claimed by marriage can be assigned by contract EXCEPT government survivor benefits. Anyone who pays taxes is on the hook to help pay these benefits so the argument for allowing gay marriage as not affecting anyone else is not exactly correct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou write: "All "rights" claimed by marriage can be assigned by contract EXCEPT government survivor benefits."
This isn't exactly true. Remember the case of Janice Langbehn, who (with their children) was denied access to her partner in the last hours of her life. These women had legal power of attorney set up, but it was disregarded, with Janice being told that she was in an anti-gay city and state.
A lawsuit was later dismissed. Contracts are not marriage. They are a poor and sometimes tragically insufficient substitute.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse" All "rights" claimed by marriage can be assigned by contract EXCEPT government survivor benefits."
That is not correct. For one example, if you were to fall in love with a woman from a foreign country and were to marry her (assuming you are a man), she could live with you in the US under a spousal visa. The same is not the case for a gay couple that can't legally marry. Is that something you would be willing to change?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce again you are using the word "rights" in place of the proper term, "privilege". Just as government does not grant rights, it protects them or denies them, it does grant privileges. What you have described is a privilege granted for the same purpose government grants hetero marriage privileges, to ensure that the foundational structures of society are maintained and society continues to survive. No, I would not want government to change what they currently allow for the maintenance of society. Calling gay unions "marriage" in this context is not correct as they do not help maintain society.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejprev40, as to your first point, how is adopting SSM as a legal matter minimizing government?
As to your second, there are many, many ways in which "someone outside of that relationship's life [is] impacted." You should really read up. Just to cite a few, schools in Massachusetts now have to teach kindergartners about homosexuality. Caterers, photographers, and innkeepers have to accommodate same-sex "weddings" whether they want to or not. Catholic adoption agencies have had to close up shop because they wouldn't place children with homosexuals, with SSM given as the explanation. And you can Google Stanley Kurtz to read about how normal marriage has died in Scandinavia because of SSM.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Jonah: In today's America, he who claims the ground of human rights automatically seizes the rhetorical high ground.
Tocqueville once observed that democracy, in time, creates democratic men. The same is true of rights. Rights talk has taken over our political discourse so completely that we hardly think about it.
And this is why, as Jonah observes, gay marriage has made such rapid progress. The first step that was required was the separation of marriage from procreation - that happened with the advent of contraception, then no fault divorce, then the sexual revolution - but once that basis was in place, the ground was ripe for a determined gay marriage campaign based on relentless rights claims. One party seemed to have a real "rights" claim. The other doesn't, or at least has not been able to articulate one well. I'd argue that there's a very good one to be made for a child's right to be brought up in a household with both mother and father wherever possible; but I concede it's a less straightforward argument, especially for a society where adults' rights always seem to trump those of children.
And this is why, ironically, the pro-life movement has had some success. Sure, ultrasounds have had a very, very big impact. But the pro-life movement started making more rhetorical progress once they cast it as a rights issue. It's pretty clear that a right is being infringed when a life is ended; indeed, it would be a slam dunk if the unborn were visibly out walking among us.
I expect current trends to continue: the terrain is going to get even bumpier for pro-abortion advocates; they will have to resort to even more evasive euphemisms to survive. And it's going to be ever harder on traditional marriage advocates, given the apparent views of Gen Yers. That's incongruous in some ways, but that's the messy social terrain we're moving into now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse