Marriage

Sort of an interesting back-and-fort on the subject of same-sex marriage. Dale Carpenter dismantles a rather lame argument by David Blankenhorn against SSM. My reaction is that Blankenhorn is playing word games and not looking at some basic issues. As Carpenter points out, Blankenhorn starts with the assumption that favoring same-sex marriage equates to disfavoring marriage (I know, it's a stretch, but it's not my argument). His attitude is implicit in the title of his essay, "Defining Marriage Down (is no way to save it)." That, to me, is a dead give-away that he is still, suprise!, against.

Carpenter deals quite effectively with the formal flaws in Blankenhorn's argument -- while ostensibly rejecting Stanley Kurtz' habit of equating correlation and causation, he falls into the same trap, moving between the two with nary a hitch. Carpenter also alludes to my major objection:

A person who's generally anti-marriage could believe, quite mistakenly, that SSM too is anti-marriage. Instead of deinstitutionalizing marriage, SSM could be a small part of reinstitutionalizing it, despite the marriage opponent's most fervent hopes. Nothing in a series of correlations in survey data answers that question either way.

That, to me, is one of the key issues. Leery as I am of intuitive solutions (in formal arguments, at least), it seems somewhat bizarre to me to take the position that denying marriage to people who want to participate somehow strengthens the institution. That, to me, has been the major flaw in the anti-SSM arguments all along: all the "save marriage" initiatives have done absolutely nothing to address the real problems that beset marriage as an institution in this country today. Hence, I have no compunction in calling them smoke-screens for an anti-gay agenda. (Here's a correlation for Blankenhorn: I wouldn't be a bit surprised to discover that those who oppose same-sex marriage are more likely to oppose equal civil rights protections for gays and to favor criminalizing homosexual behavior.)

Blankenhorn appears to start from the idea that any alteration to the institution of marriage as it now stands must necessarily weaken it. This is by no means self-evident and itself requires examination. I think the mere fact that marriage has been redefined continually during its existence should be enough to lay that whole idea to rest.

Carpenter has promised a further post on Blankenhorn's argument, which I will try to keep an eye out for.

Update:

A little tangential, but germane, I think. Here's a terrific interview at Pam's House Blend with Joe Murray, colimnist former staff attorney for the American Family Association who came out strongly against Peter Pace's remarks on gays in the military. It touches on gay marriage and gay rights in general, and provides some good insights into the minds of Donald and Tim Wildmon, two of the strongest opponents of any rights for gays. Although Murray claims not to know what they're thinking, his evidence of their actions is pretty revealing, particularly since he is coming from the stance of a conservative Christian.

Oh, and do read the comments from the hateful lefties.