Marriage Note: WTF?

Heather MacDonald over at Secular Right has come up with one of the most bizarre arguments against same-sex marriage I've ever seen. This is pretty much unbelievable:

If the black illegitimacy rate were not nearly three times the rate of whites’, I would have few qualms about gay marriage. Or if someone can guarantee that widespread gay marriage would not further erode the expectation among blacks that marriage is the proper context for raising children, I would also not worry. But no one can make that guarantee.

Why might it further depress the black marriage rate? There is a logical reason and a visceral reason. First, it sends the signal that marriage is simply about numbers: it is an institution that binds two (for the moment) people who are in love. It erases completely the significance that marriage is THE context in which the children of biological parents should be raised. And there are undoubtedly many other subtle meanings and effects of gay marriage that we cannot even imagine at the moment—which institutional shift is something that conservatives should be most attuned to.

Why don't these people just admit that they don't like fags instead of engaging in these double back-flips to try to come up with "rational" reasons to limit marriage to heterosexuals? (Which they never seem to manage anyway.)

First off, she's taking a severe problem in the black community, making some assumptions that may or may not be justified, not examining the factors that contribute to the problem (does she mention poverty? Does she mention the role of welfare, which actually penalizes married couples? Does she mention the role of matriarchy in black culture? No, of course not.), and using it as a springboard to condemn same-sex marriage, which has absolutely nothing to do with the rate of illegitimacy in the black community.

Second, she makes completely unwarranted -- and insupportable -- statements about same-sex marriage: marriage does not become "simply about numbers" if same-sex couples are involved. It certainly does not erase the significance of marriage in raising children. And note that she's pounding on the biological parents drum here, which is largely irrelevant to the argument: people don't need a marriage license to make babies, as her comments about the illegitimacy rate among blacks point up. I agree, however, that a stable home with married parents is still the best way to raise children, no matter who gave birth to them. Nor, as we know from legitimate research, does it matter whether the parents are a man and a woman, two men, or two women -- although there is some slight and probably not statistically significant evidence that two women are the best at it. There's something really primitive about this "conservative" insistence on biological parents. Sure, in the usual course of events, that's what's going to happen. About 25% of the time at present. Think about that. (That's an old number and may not be accurate, but it was an appalling statistic a few years ago: about 25% of families in this country fit into the fringe right's definition of "traditional.")

Fortunately, I don't have to dissect MacDonald's post in any detail -- her readers have already done that, and pretty much raked her over the coals. (It's worth reading the coments on this one -- quite good across the board.) Reader willybobo eviscerates MacDonal's conservative stance:

Or perhaps it’s that you have a different framework for considering the role of the government and individuals. You seem to speak of marriage as if it’s a benefit that the government discretionarily hands out to individuals. Therefore, before we extend that benefit to more citizens, namely gay citizens, we ought require a compelling case to be made that such citizens are worthy of the right, including proper consideration of the potential negative consequences a detailed plan — a guarantee in fact — that these consequences can be avoided.

If that’s your default operating framework for government, it seems to me decidedly not conservative. For I believe the conservative position starts from the basis that individuals have a natural right to freedoms in their affairs, and that the essential role of government is to protect these rights, imposing limits upon them only when such rights can be shown to interfere with the rights of others or the collective good.

In the case of marriage, then, I think your assumed default position is exactly counter to a conservative stance. The onus should be those who seek to restrict an individual’s right to marriage to demonstrate why such a right interferes with the liberty or well being of the collective as a case against it. Failing such a compelling argument, the government ought take no position. Here you seem to be arguing for the opposite: an activist role for the government in regulating marriage, with your fundamental point being that we ought subject the freeing of some of the regulation (the prohibition against same sex partners) to higher scrutiny prior to agreeing to it.

However, my bottom line remains the same: this was a particularly brainless post.