Marriage Law

Ryan T. Anderson (an author of the paper “What Is Marriage,” published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy) is one of the clearest writers on the issue of marriage that I know of, and I’m looking forward to the release of the book What Is Marriage next month.

Today, I came across this concise summary by Anderson of why we ought not to change our legal definition of marriage from the “conjugal” view to the “emotional bond” view:

Our marriage law should reflect the truth about what marriage is: a pre-political institution springing from human nature itself. Government should not redefine or recreate marriage, nor should it obscure the truth about what marriage is. Recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would weaken marriage as a social institution. It would redefine marriage as essentially an emotional bond, thus rendering marital norms arbitrary and less intelligible. It would further delink childbearing from marriage and deny, as a matter of law, the importance of a mother or a father in a child’s life. The outcomes associated with such absence are far from promising.

While this brief statement obviously doesn’t explain the full argument for each of these points, it’s helpful to have a list of the categories of arguments that need to be considered before we take the drastic measure of fundamentally changing marriage as a culture. To research more detail on each of these points, you can start by searching our website or scanning the ethics category on this blog. A few examples:

The Competing Views of Marriage
Inconsistent Same-Sex Marriage Advocates
Same-Sex Marriage Won’t Be Enough

This is the most difficult subject to discuss with people. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have a friend or loved one who thinks changing the definition of marriage will be in his or her best interest, and nobody enjoys saying no to them. But there are serious consequences to tampering with a naturally occurring institution like marriage. The view that we can endlessly remake ourselves into whatever we like is false. Male and female are real categories. The differences—biological, emotional, psychological—are real. The need for both is real. The union of the two, complementary sexes is unique, with unique public consequences.

Civilization is much more fragile than we realize, and marriage—the male–female union that builds our society—is much more central to civilization than people understand. If we decide to thumb our nose at reality, reality will not be forgiving.

Comments

[Mo]

"If we decide to thumb our nose at reality, reality will not be forgiving."

Well stated. The sad part is most people won't believe it until they start seeing the negative consequences. By then, it will be too late to do much about it.

***

The book sounds fascinating. I've added it to my miles-long Wish List!

[Craig Hurst]

Added the book to my wish list!

[B]

" by then it will be too late"

There is a precedent for gay marriage in other countries and also US states, so we should already be able to see the consequences if they are good or bad. I haven't heard of any disastrous consequences in Canada or Europe for example.

[Darth Dutch]

"There is a precedent for gay marriage in other countries and also US states, so we should already be able to see the consequences if they are good or bad. I haven't heard of any disastrous consequences in Canada or Europe for example."

Anything that degrades the foundational building block of society, the nuclear family, will have disastrous results over time. Same sex marriage is just one of many things that will erode that foundation.

The US states you mentioned only recently passed such laws so, yes, we might not see those results right now, but just like Rome wasn't built in a day, neither did the downfall of Rome happen suddenly or due to one thing.

I don't think there is as much a causal relationship between same sex marriage and any declination of society, but more that the fact we are having this discussion as a culture is a symptom that the declination of society is already happening.

Darth Dutch

[Amy]

B, there are problems that result when a society changes it's idea of marriage as being connected to children and their welfare to the idea of an emotional bond endorsed by the state. You can find more written about this, but here's one example:

Gay-marriage advocates rejected the idea that marriage is intrinsically connected to parenthood, and the Dutch public bought that argument. Once marriage stops being about binding mothers and fathers together for the sake of the children they create, the need to get married gradually disappears….

The Netherlands is so important because it provides evidence for an actual acceleration of out-of-wedlock birthrates following the passage of same-sex unions–proof demanded by Eskridge and Spedale. We see this in the Netherlands because, in contrast to Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates were relatively low in Holland prior to the advent of registered partnerships and gay marriage….

All indications are that the Dutch case is a causal smoking gun for gay marriage’s negative effects. Although the matter is fair game for continued debate, no one has yet offered a convincing alternative explanation, or even fully confronted the arguments already on the table. At a bare minimum, the rapid and ongoing deterioration of Dutch marriage shows that the “conservative case” for same-sex marriage has been proven wrong in the Netherlands. Convince the public that marriage is not about parenthood, and increasingly parents simply stop getting married.

[Darth Dutch]

"I don't think there is as much a causal relationship between same sex marriage and any declination of society"

Ooops, I meant to say I didn't think that same sex marriage is the sole reason for declination of society, but did not convey that. It is certainly part of it.

Darth Dutch

[John Wing]

"A Queer Thing Happened to America" by Dr Michael Brown has a chapter or two on the effects of same sex marriage in Europe.