Andrew Sullian has a short comment on this piece by Daniel Larison. His argument, as Larison's, is pretty much centered on the idea of a "conservative case" for same-sex marriage, as espoused by Sullivan and Friedersdorf, which I've already noted is pretty much irrelevant in any real discussion -- if your arguments have to conform to an ideology, then you are, almost automatically, not looking at the whole picture. Looking at Larison's piece, I don't see that he's actually made any points:
When endorsing a change, particularly one this radical, a conservative would need to show not only that it does not do harm to the institution in question but also that it actually reinforces and reinvigorates the institution. Whether or not “gay marriage” harms the institution of marriage, it certainly does not strengthen it. It is therefore undesirable because it is unnecessary to the preservation of the relevant institution, and so the appropriate conservative view is to leave well enough alone.
Two points: same-sex marriage can quite arguably be said to strengthen the institution of marriage, Larison's flat assertion notwithstanding, (and you know how much we value argument by assertion around here) because it brings a new group into the institution: gays then have an investment in making it work -- and considering the statistics so far (granted, thin, and we're just getting to the point where they're having any real meaning), doing a better job of it. And then, of course, there's the divorce question, which everyone agrees is a much worse threat to the institution, but no one wants to touch -- including Larison. In the case of such as Rick Warren, glowingly cited by Mona Charen in this regard, fighting divorce is not going to make you any money; "God Hates Fags" does. The excuse is that the subject is same-sex marriage, but frankly, if you're going to cast it as a threat when there are much bigger and more immediate threats to hand, I suspect you're just playing politics, no matter how you want to dress it up.
As for the "radical" charge, this is pretty much standard theo-con scare words. It's actually sort of interesting, given that the far right Christianist movement is arguably the most radical phenomenon in American politics of the last generation or more. I smell a bit of projection here.
Here, Larison reveals himself as seriously out of touch:
If allowing that change means, as Andrew puts it, “accepting gay love and commitment as indistinguishable in moral worth and social status as straight love,” it is not going to happen for a very long time, if it ever will, because I think it is fair to say that opponents of “gay marriage” do not accept the two as indistinguishable and see no reason why they should.
New generations grow up and take over, and attitudes change. It's going to happen, and much sooner than Larison can envision in his wildest nightmares. Nor do I think we have to wait for the next generation: the idea is finally gaining currency that we are talking about a fundamental right, marriage, as opposed to a "made-up" right, same-sex marriage and that you have to have a much more solid and rational reason than "tradition" to withhold it from someone. There's a legal aspect to this that those opposed to same-sex marriage don't want to deal with because such discussions betray their lack of understanding and sympathy with the rule of law as something separate and dominant over the whim of the people.
There's also the fact that opposition to gay marriage can -- and does -- come from bases other than seeing same-sex relationships as "deviant." It looks very much as though Larison is conflating those motivations as, perhaps, a reflection of his own bias -- see below his remarks on "normal."
Approval of gay marriage is still a minority position, but to translate those who don't approve into "opponents" is stretching a point: the active opponents are few and quite vocal -- and well-funded -- and don't seem to worry much about factual accuracy. We've seen the tactics, and most people, I think, find them repellent when made aware of them. "Not approving" is pretty much a passive state, and subject to change, particularly when accurate information starts getting spread around.
He goes on:
If that is what “gay marriage” requires, I see even less reason why conservatives should accept it. Indeed, that statement helps explain the reason why “gay marriage” is so strenuously opposed while there is no movement trying to overturn Lawrence: there is a vast difference between permitting something and being compelled to accept it as indistinguishable from the norm.
We've been redefining "the norm" throughout human history and undoubtedly before. It's another case of sliding definitions: "normal" is not a point, it is a range, as any psychologist or statistician will tell you. And people are starting to accept that same-sex relationships do fall within that range. "Normal" in reality encompasses a lot more than Larison's artificial limitations.
The fundamental flaws that I see in Larison's arguments stem from the fact that his assumptions aren't necessarily valid. There is a wide range of opinion on the definition of marriage itself, which the anti-gay right refuses to acknowledge. The "one man, one woman" formula doesn't really speak in any substantive way to what marriage actually is -- we've found better conceptualizations of that in court opinions than in anything coming from so-called "conservatives." The procreation argument is equally lacking: marriage certainly isn't a requirement for begetting children, although a stable family reinforced by the legal and social recognition of marriage still seems the best way to raise them. (Conflating concepts again, aren't we?) And the weight of the evidence is that it makes no difference whether the family is headed by a man and a woman, two men, or two women. (Although there are some slight indications that two women do the best job.)
Sorry to be bitchy, but all I see here is whining based on a mythical majority based on a minority that makes a lot of noise and has a lot of money.
No comments:
Post a Comment