Ross Douthat: The Marriage Ideal
(So I wrote 90% of this two days ago and then forgot it in drafts. Can’t let it go.)
I’m sorry in advance. I feel a rant coming on.
This kind of nonsense, by an otherwise intelligent human being, drives me batty. Still, I urge you to read it, to understand how those opposed to gay marriage twist themselves into pretzels in order to come up with rational, intellectual explanations for their gut-level bigotry.
Douthat’s central argument is that straight marriage is a cornerstone of Western civilization, an “ideal” he calls it, that should be maintained as such by law:
But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their potential fruit.
Douthat says that Judge Walker’s ruling disallows the distinction by society of whether one form of marriage is superior, or “ideal.” He basically states that any society that legalizes gay marriage is giving up on the ability to even “entertain” the idea that there might be a distinction.
The glaring, fundamental flaw of this argument is that a democracy is not based upon legislating an ideal form of living, but the opposite; our democracy is built upon the central tenet of individual liberty, and our laws exist to protect the individual’s “pursuit of happiness” from other individuals and from the state.
Put another way: our laws, and our Constitution, provide a wide berth for what is considered acceptable behavior. We are not allowed to murder or steal. But we are allowed to do all sorts of things that some people find objectionable, like curse or use racist language, gamble our family’s savings away, drink ourselves to oblivion, cheat on our boyfriend or girlfriend, or intentionally trick someone into a bad contract.
In 20 states and DC, it is perfectly legal to marry your first cousin. Until rather recently, our laws allowed a man to rape his wife. Those were the days, amirite?
It does not follow that just because one doesn’t like the idea of gays marrying that one should be opposed to it being legal. That is because while our laws often prevent us from crossing those lines that impinge on other people’s freedoms, they do not require us to live up to some imagined standard.
The Ten Commandments, so often carved into rock by hack sculptors for placement in and around courtrooms: The first four say there’s but one God, that we shouldn’t worship false idols, that we shouldn’t take God’s name in vain, and that we should keep the Sabbath holy. We do not legislate these, and in fact, we legislate the opposite: freedom of religion. Fuck Jesus Christ and Buddha six ways to Sunday if you try to take away my Sailor Moon fuckshrine.
The fifth says we should honor our mother and father, but fuck those guys, too.
The ninth says we should not bear false witness, but in reality, we lie all the time. All the fucking time. You are pretty. See? The only time we’re obligated to tell the truth is under oath, and even then, I’d say you were pretty, even with that receding hairline, splotchy skin, and talking goiter.
The tenth says we shouldn’t covet the property of our neighbor, like his wife or slave or donkey or stereo system. But have you seen my Patrick Swayze DVD collection? You can’t have it!
In fact the only two we enforce by law are 6 and 8, murder and stealing. Good thing we got those tablets or else we would have never known.
Which brings me to number 7: adultery. Is adultery a crime? No, it’s not. (Well, it apparently sometimes still is, though rarely enforced.) Adultery may invalidate a pre-nuptual agreement or be grounds for divorce, but you’ll never be arrested for it.
Oh, right, divorce. Do we even need “grounds” anymore? How does Ross Douthat feel about divorce? (Other than wishing there was less of it, duh.) But should we even be allowed to divorce without the Vatican’s say so? Geez, those were the days.
How many Americans would support going back to stricter adultery and divorce laws, with prison time and so forth? More to the point: by allowing adultery and divorce under law, are we abandoning society’s ability to suggest that an “ideal” marriage is one that lasts a long time, without any cheating?
In point of fact, our laws show just how big of a divide there is between what our society thinks of as an ideal marriage, and the individual liberty our nation allows of its citizens.
Douthat’s argument that Walker’s ruling precludes society from distinguishing between “ideal” and “acceptable” behavior is either unintentionally idiotic or intentionally misleading. What Walker said is: you can have your ideal, and you can continue to argue that it is superior, but that argument is insufficient to restrict the behavior of others to pursue their own ideal.
——-
Social conservatives used to be able to argue against gay marriage on the basis that homosexuality was evil, that it was a sin and an abomination. This kind of thinking puts homosexuality on the same side of the fence as obvious wrongs, like murder and theft. It’s why they always link gayness with pedophilia and bestiality.
But society has moved on. While a majority are still opposed to gay marriage, most Americans have come to tolerate homosexuality. Few think gay sex should be against the law. Most people do not think it’s a contagious disease, or the work of the devil, or a cult of indoctrination.
As homosexuality moves within the fence of what’s tolerable to society, social conservatives have to work extra hard to make their case against gay marriage. This is why they have to now make further distinctions about behavior within the fence; they have to now try to erect another fence to distinguish between what’s acceptable and what’s ideal, and codify it into law.
They have to double-down on an overtly religious argument and convince people that our laws should promote a narrower definition of morality. So while railing against Elena Kagan for fear she’ll legislate Sharia, they hypocritically push for an increasingly Christian theocracy.
The other class of arguments conservatives use, and I think where Douthat is coming from, is that marriage is a special institution sanctioned by the state to support socially beneficial behavior. But going back to adultery and divorce, it’s pretty clear that we now view marriage mainly as a contract between individuals, and not a contract between a couple and the state.
For example, we do not require married couples to procreate, prevent the sterile from marrying, legally bar the unmarried from having kids or adopting. And what about people who don’t want to get married at all? What ideal should we require them to meet?
We don’t arrest people for adultery because we view it principally as an abuse of an agreement between two people, not a crime committed by a person upon society. We’ve made it easier to get a divorce, not because liberals think divorce is awesome, but because our society values the right of an individual to make their own choices. Should we really have to prove to the state why we should be able to get a divorce?
Even our churches have given up the ghost on marriage and have become inclusive, rather than exclusive, on this point. Churches are now regularly annulling marriages, giving communion to the divorced, performing remarriages, and so forth. Anything to keep people in the pews. Fucking Christian rock even, gah.
Douthat is looking for a middle way. He argues that our legal system should enshrine straight marriage as sacrosanct because it represents an ideal form of behavior (that is, he avoids explicitly religious argument and he is not making typical state arguments). But this argument falls apart because nowhere else do we still make this kind of distinction, where we say only certain people, meeting some demographic condition of superiority, should be allowed to do something. His argument can’t be generalized; it’s arbitrary.
Gay marriage is different than abortion, which a pro-lifer might argue is about how the right to life (of the fetus) supercedes the right to liberty (that of the mother). There is no such fundamental conflict with gay marriage.
Rather, the fundamental conflict with the gay marriage issue is that one cannot believe both in individual liberty and the right of the state to decide how you should live your life.
I wish more conservatives were honest about this betrayal to the bedrock principles of our Constitution. Take off the veil, Mr. Douthat, you’re a fascist like the rest of them.
But, wait, I’ve got a solution. Mr. Douthat, why don’t you just create some new form of marriage. You can call it “ideal marriage” and only allow straight couples who procreate, never cheat, and never divorce to participate. You can make a checklist. That whole coveting thing is optional. You can give out “ideal marriage” certificates only to qualified couples. These ideal straight marriage family units can frame their certificates and hang them up over the fireplace, and stare at them, and hug, and feel superior.
——-
Update: Oh, hey, look, everyone’s angry! See Glenn Greenwald, Adam Serwer, Andrew Sullivan, Matt Yglesias, Dan Savage, Michael Wolff, Choire Sicha, Steve Benen,
