Another Marriage Kerfluffle

Comments on this report have appeared in various places over the past couple of days -- Timothy Kincaid's commentary on the reporting is arguably the most accurate.

There are a number of people -- all, not surprisingly, opponents of same-sex marriage -- who are just taking the NYT report at face value and jumping on the promiscuity bandwagon. Two comments on that: science reporting in this country is in general pretty lame, and I've seen the Times go steadily downhill from a mediocre starting point in just the past few years. And second, if you're relying on this kind of lazy, inaccurate summary, you're going to get shot down.

One of those who seems to love going off half-cocked is Rod Dreher, who came up with this bit of legerdemain:

Because it speaks to how partisans on one side of the same-sex marriage issue wish to conceal scientific research that doesn't serve their purposes. If it's true that half of same-sex couples live in an open marriage/relationship, then concerns from SSM opponents that extending marriage to gay couples would redefine our culture's understanding of marriage can't be dismissed as unfounded. Note that James, an advocate of same-sex marriage, doesn't dispute that SSM will force our cultural understanding of marriage to evolve, but even cites unnamed experts saying that the gay model could change straight attitudes toward marriage for the better.

In an apparent attempt to be even handed, Dreher also notes that opponents of SSM don't acknowledge research that undercuts their position. The problem is that Dreher is relying on a badly flawed report to advance his arguments while condemning the pro-SSM side for not publicizing it. In fact, I've seen commentaries on the study, and the NYT report, on a number of gay blogs, so I'm not sure where Dreher is basing his criticism.

Maybe one reason Dreher isn't seeing the kind of coverage in the gay press that he wants to see is that the study doesn't say what the report says it does -- it's not about marriage, and it's not a study from which nation-wide conclusions can be drawn. Dreher is using the standard right-wing tactic of claiming that the "science" reaches conclusions that it doesn't reach. Timothy Kincaid calls him on it in the comments.

Damon Linker also takes Dreher to task:

Even if we assume that the study cited in the Times article is accurate and that gay community as a whole shares the outlook and attitudes of married homosexuals in Bay area, traditionalists need to explain the mechanism whereby the practices of roughly half of the members of a tiny minority who choose to marry will decisively influence the marital practices of everyone, or even anyone, else. Traditionalists dread this influence—just as some of those quoted in the article welcome it. But do those fears and hopes make sense? How is the change going to happen? Why should we assume that it will? Because sleeping around is fun, and the only thing holding traditional mores in place is ignorance among mainstream Americans that it’s possible to engage in consensual polyamory?

Linker also goes on to comment further on the fragility or "traditional" marriage:

What a fascinatingly bleak view of the human condition we find among sexual traditionalists: Traditional marriage is natural, and homosexuality is contrary to nature; but nature is so fragile that it needs to be backed up by unquestioning tradition, as well as by the force of law; the moment those traditional mores and legal sanctions are loosened, people begin to diverge from their own natures and conform to the unnatural practices of the deviants, thereby dissolving traditional marriage. This is why I’ve always had a perverse respect for those traditionalists who have been willing to follow their darkly pessimistic convictions all the way to the end—to admit that they think traditional marriage is fundamentally incompatible with freedom. (And no, redefining freedom to mean “obedience” doesn’t count.)

That's one thing that has struck me over and over again, not only in arguments pro/con same-sex marriage, but when debating the merits of gay civil rights in general: if their way is the natural way, why do they assume that if gays are allowed to live openly and honestly, everyone else is going to jump ship and swim madly for the "deviant lifestyle"? Something tells me Linker's got it right: the heterosexists don't have a lot of confidence in their position.