Gay Marriage - a Conservative Idea

[Doug69]

Conservative New York Times Op-Ed Columnist David Brooks published a column advocating gay marriage today, from the conservative perspective:

__________________________________________________________________

 

The Power of Marriage

By DAVID BROOKS

 

Published: November 22, 2003

 

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

 

But marriage is the opposite. Marriage joins two people in a sacred bond. It demands that they make an exclusive commitment to each other and thereby takes two discrete individuals and turns them into kin.

 

Few of us work as hard at the vocation of marriage as we should. But marriage makes us better than we deserve to be. Even in the chores of daily life, married couples find themselves, over the years, coming closer together, fusing into one flesh. Married people who remain committed to each other find that they reorganize and deepen each other's lives. They may eventually come to the point when they can say to each other: "Love you? I am you."

 

Today marriage is in crisis. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. Worse, in some circles, marriage is not even expected. Men and women shack up for a while, produce children and then float off to shack up with someone else.

 

Marriage is in crisis because marriage, which relies on a culture of fidelity, is now asked to survive in a culture of contingency. Today, individual choice is held up as the highest value: choice of lifestyles, choice of identities, choice of cellphone rate plans. Freedom is a wonderful thing, but the culture of contingency means that the marriage bond, which is supposed to be a sacred vow till death do us part, is now more likely to be seen as an easily canceled contract.

 

Men are more likely to want to trade up, when a younger trophy wife comes along. Men and women are quicker to opt out of marriages, even marriages that are not fatally flawed, when their "needs" don't seem to be met at that moment.

 

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a "partner," a word that reeks of contingency.

 

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

 

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn't be in crisis. In truth, it's moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that "domesticates" all people.

 

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We're moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried."

 

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

 

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

 

Marriage is not voting. It's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

[Guest ncm2169]

This is one liberal who appreciates David Brooks' often provocative "outside the orthodox conservative box" views. He's a very bright guy, IMHO, and "the other side" is lucky to have him. If only the left had someone with his talents!

 

Thank you for sharing this, Doug.

[+ Charlie]

This is why the topic of gay marriage makes me uncomfortable: because it really is a "conservative idea." I don't want conservatives--straight and gay--trying to pressure me into marrying my partner; after all, we have only lived together for 35 years, so I'm not sure yet that I want to make that commitment.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is

>committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil

>from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and

>pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations....

 

>We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should

>insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that

>two people could claim to love each other and not want to

>sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity....

 

>It's going to be up to conservatives

>to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay

>marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the

>culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and

>sacred relations, is an abomination.

 

And there you have, in a nutshell, the real motive behind conservative support for gay marriage: social engineering. If we can't beat 'em, lets make 'em join us. This is exactly why the pro-gay-marriage camp should be careful what it wishes for.

[trilingual]

I don't think there's much to worry about if conservatives suddenly leap onto the marriage bandwagon! The societal factors Brooks cites in his article are with us to stay, I think, so marriage will continue to be what the partners make of it. More importantly, nobody is obliged to marry. If that's not what a couple wants for their relationship, they can carry on as they've been doing, without the legal benefits of marriage. It is, and always will be, a choice people can make for themselves. But civil society has the right to decide not to confer the legal benefits of marriage on couples unwilling to assume the legal responsibilities that go with it. As long as civil society doesn't discriminate between same and opposite-sex couples, that's all one can ask for. And, in fact, that's all anyone IS asking for!

[dick_nyc]

Then just what is the difference between gay marriage and civil union? Based on what you just posted they seem to be the same thing but I read all the hoo-hah about gay marriage. Seems like the same thing with a different name. Any ideas?

[dick_nyc]

Sorry, I left something out of prior posting.

 

I am in favor of either for anybody who is willing to commit. The question actually is why the big deal about the name. When the Mass court case came out it was noted as a big advance over the Vermont situation. Why?

[AdamSmith]

>The question actually is why the big deal about the name.

>When the Mass court case came out it was noted as a big

>advance over the Vermont situation. Why?

 

1. Federal benefits of marriage.

 

"According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections."

 

Nor federal inheritance tax exemption for surviving partner.

 

Of course federal DOMA would have to be overturned, either through pressure on Congress or more likely through persistent, repeated court challenge.

 

http://www.yffn.org/spi/marriagevsunion.html

 

2. "Separate but equal?"

 

It's as if the Supreme Court had ruled in Loving v. Virginia that interracial civil unions are legal, but states have a compelling interest in banning interracial marriage. Would the civil rights movement have been satisfied with that?

 

http://www.marriageequalityca.com/civil_unions.php

[phage]

>Then just what is the difference between gay marriage and

>civil union? Based on what you just posted they seem to be

>the same thing but I read all the hoo-hah about gay marriage.

>Seems like the same thing with a different name. Any ideas?

 

This is where I part company with many of the leaders of the marriage rights movement. I think I understand their reasoning. That separate and equal is difficult to achieve and it would be more straightforward to roll them into the existing marriage framework with all its rights and privileges. Also, a separate system for a gay couple implies that they are somehow unworthy of participating in the same system as a straight couple.

 

However, I think we need to take a more pragmatic approach. Our most compelling argument is that we have every right to participate in the civil aspects of marriage. Well then, let’s give our straight opponents the word ‘marriage’ with all its religious connotations and concentrate on the civil aspects of the marriage contract. You can call your partner anything you want, and over time, the two institutions will become indistinguishable.

 

Regarding Devon’s comment about social engineering. Some of it will definitely happen. I work for a large but fairly conservative corporation. When they instituted domestic partner benefits a couple of years ago, they made it clear that they were only offering it to same sex couples because they were not allowed to marry. The benefits are not available to heterosexual couples and they will not remain available to same sex couples who do not participate in whatever civil institution is available to them. Next year, couples in California will only be covered if they are registered with the State.

[Doug69]

>This is why the topic of gay marriage makes me uncomfortable:

>because it really is a "conservative idea." I don't want

>conservatives--straight and gay--trying to pressure me into

>marrying my partner; after all, we have only lived together

>for 35 years, so I'm not sure yet that I want to make that

>commitment.

 

How does legalizing gay marriage constitute "pressure" in any way? It's simply saying that the benefits which are available only to straight married couples will be available equally to gay married couples.

 

If you don't want to get married, you don't have to. Why do you perceive any "pressure" to do so?

[Doug69]

>And there you have, in a nutshell, the real motive behind

>conservative support for gay marriage: social engineering.

 

How is it any different than the framework for heterosexual marriage? Don't you think society has a legitimate interesting in encouraging people, especially those who raise children, to live together in long-term, committed relationships rather than running around fucking everyone they can find at random and then moving on to the next fuck?

 

People should have the freedom to live that way if they wish, and they do, but do you really object to the notion that society has an interest in encouraging those who want to live in a more committed and meaningful relationship to do so, particularly if they are raising children?

 

> If

>we can't beat 'em, lets make 'em join us.

 

Given that gay couples can't get any of these marital and legal benefits now - at least in most places - isn't it better for them to be able to get the same benefits as straight couples on the same terms as straight couples can get them?

 

Also, why do you object to other gay people having this option? If you like your promiscuous, oh-so-boehemian San Fransisco escort life of fucking lots and lots of guys without any monogomous commitment, why is gay marriage a threat to you? If you read proposed gay marriage laws, you'll see that nothing in any of them compels anyone to get married. It only allows those who wish to be married the freedom to do so on the same terms as their fellow citizens.

 

Who could possibly ever object to taking a law which gives benefits and privileges by excluding gay people, and changing it so that it treats gay people and straight people equally? Other than religious objection, what possible reason is there to favor the law in its exclusionary, discriminatory form over an inclusionary, equal form?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>As long as civil society doesn't discriminate between

>same and opposite-sex couples, that's all one can ask for.

>And, in fact, that's all anyone IS asking for!

 

Well, Brooks, for one, isn't asking for any such thing. His is distinctly NOT an anti-discrimination argument (not even in passing), but a pro-domestication argument. And I think now is the time for us to ask ourselves what might happen if/when we are brought into the institutional fold. Either, as pro-gay-marriage-conservatives hope, gay culture will gradually be transformed into a cultural that stigmatizes alternatives to monogamy, or surprisingly few gays will opt to assume the rights and "responsibilities" of marriage. What if it's the latter? If it ought to be "scandalous" NOT to opt for the marriages he thinks conservatives should not only permit but "insist" upon, then what is to be done about it? I'm not sure what he has in mind or what he'll come up with, but I think it's premature to be too sanguine about it. I think the main difference, on this issue, between Brooks and, say, the Falwell school of conservatism is that Brooks has realized that simply shutting gays out isn't a very effective way to regulate our sexuality. Right now straight society largely makes very little distinction between monogamous gays and the rest of us. Once we have marriage rights and (hypothetically) we're STILL largely not choosing to "commit spiritual suicide," will our sexuality actually come under a greater level of scrutiny and normative pressures than before? Will the domestic partners gains that have been made in various parts of the country be discarded once we have the right to marry? Again, I don't know, but it's a good idea to take a closer look at the strange bedfellows that are beginning to emerge on this issue. "Liberal" feminists and social conservatives, after all, have joined forces on pornography, for example, and not without consequences.

[dick_nyc]

You say there are 1049 benefits. If the DOMA stands, then gay marriage does not get these 1049 benefits so no advance. If you repeal the DOMA then by just redefining the civil unions you have the same benefits without the name. Again no advance. If you are against "separate but equal" then why is the civil union any advance. It does not meet your standards for what you should accept. Again the whole thing boils down to a name.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Don't you think society has a legitimate

>interesting in encouraging people, especially those who raise

>children, to live together in long-term, committed

>relationships rather than running around fucking everyone they

>can find at random and then moving on to the next fuck?

 

There are many shades of gray between those two stark polar opposites. Some people only have a few sexual partners a year, but according to Brooks, they are committing "spiritual suicide." I take your point about people who raise children, but you may have noticed that Brooks didn't mention supporting the right of gays to raise children.

 

>People should have the freedom to live that way if they wish,

>and they do, but do you really object to the notion that

>society has an interest in encouraging those who want to live

>in a more committed and meaningful relationship to do so,

>particularly if they are raising children?

 

This vision doesn't allow for any kind of open relationship, or the notion that two people can be committed to and take responsibility for one another unless they are "forsaking all others."

 

>Given that gay couples can't get any of these marital and

>legal benefits now - at least in most places - isn't it better

>for them to be able to get the same benefits as straight

>couples on the same terms as straight couples can get them?

 

It's better than no ability to get those rights at all, but what would be even better would be the ability to end the monopoly the insitution of marriage has on these rights. Marriage has been evolving over thousands of years to suit the needs/purposes of male/female child-rearing couples. The modern gay rights movement is going on thirty-five years old. I think we could use a little more time to determine what kinds of arrangements actually work best for gay couples and which for lesbian couples (and they may well not be the same thing).

 

>Also, why do you object to other gay people having this

>option? If you like your promiscuous, oh-so-boehemian San

>Fransisco escort life of fucking lots and lots of guys without

>any monogomous commitment, why is gay marriage a threat to

>you?

 

Actually, my intention is not to object to other gay people having this option, but to point out that not everyone who supports this option has the same motives. And nothing could be less threatening to my promiscuous, oh-so-bohemian San Francisco escort life of fucking lots and lots of guys without any monogamous commitment than a social reform which encourages more people to get marriage. Indeed, I suspect I'd have more customers than ever before. From a purely mercenary standpoint, I ought to hoping and praying gays proceed to the alter en masse. But stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, I'm not at all sure that marriage is the best type of arrangement for our "contingency" culture. I think the crisis marriage is undergoing might not be such an unhealthy thing. I think it's quite possible that maybe the reason half of marriages end in divorce is simply that people are exercising freedoms they didn't previously have, and while this process is messy and at times painful for all involved, in the long run one person with the same person from high school to the grave just might not be the way many people want to live. Much of Brooks's rhetoric echoes the arguments of people who want to end no-fault divorce and make it harder for people to sever bad marriages.

 

>Other than religious objection, what possible reason is there

>to favor the law in its exclusionary, discriminatory form over

>an inclusionary, equal form?

 

Why should those be the only two choices?

[+ Charlie]

The same sort of social pressures that are put on straight couples to marry, by family, friends, conservative employers, etc., would be exerted on gay couples. (The domestic partner benefits that my former employer offers would definitely be abandoned as soon as the argument that "it's unfair to deny them because they CAN'T marry" was eliminated.) Many conservative gays (and those straights who accepted the idea of gay marriage) would see the refusal of couples like us to marry as "immature". Many politically active gays--including liberals--would even see our refusal as a betrayal of the cause; believe me, I have already tangled with some of them over this. I like the idea of civil unions to guarantee legal rights, but I don't want to be coerced into the mysticism of marriage.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Also, a separate system for a gay couple implies

>that they are somehow unworthy of participating in the same

>system as a straight couple.

 

Or it implies that male-male relationships have a different dynamic from male-female ones (and, I would add, from female-female ones). Straights have been developing an institution to support THEIR relationships for thousands of years. Rather than adopt their system just as its collapsing under its own weight, why not work on evolving our own?

[Rick Munroe]

>to live together in long-term, committed

>relationships rather than running around fucking everyone they

>can find at random and then moving on to the next fuck?

 

Why does it all come down to the act of having sex? And why do you assume that anybody who doesn't want to get married is "running around fucking everyone they can find at random"? There are plenty of other choices and lifestyles but you're only thinking in extremes.

 

>society has an interest in encouraging those who want to live

>in a more committed and meaningful relationship

 

Why is a monogamous relationship more "meaningful" than one that is open? How can anybody judge the value of other people's relationships? My relationship with Derek is no less "meaningful" than it was when we were monogamous.

 

>If you like your promiscuous, oh-so-boehemian San

>Fransisco escort life of fucking lots and lots of guys without

>any monogomous commitment

 

It's nice to see you're not being judgmental, Doug. :*

[+ Charlie]

Just a slight correction, Devon: the modern gay rights movement did not begin with Stonewall. It began in the early 1950s and was spearheaded, interestingly, by committed couples of both sexes. I think the movement for gay marriage is a logical result of their arguments for equal rights, but as you have pointed out, those rights may be attached to acceptance of notions of marriage and sexuality that are a two-edged sword.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Just a slight correction, Devon: the modern gay rights

>movement did not begin with Stonewall. It began in the early

>1950s and was spearheaded, interestingly, by committed couples

>of both sexes.

 

You're right, Charlie. I should have said "postmodern" or "contemporary" -- basically I was referring to what used to be called gay lib -- the explosion that happened after Stonewall. But there was much important groundwork done in the years before by the brave people you describe.

[theDCeBOY]

>Rather than adopt their system just as its collapsing

>under its own weight, why not work on evolving our own?

great. pay for it on your own as well.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>>Rather than adopt their system just as its collapsing

>>under its own weight, why not work on evolving our own?

 

>great. pay for it on your own as well.

 

Fine. Somebody tell that to married people, then. Single people have been subsidizing their arrangements for years.

[phage]

>Fine. Somebody tell that to married people, then. Single

>people have been subsidizing their arrangements for years.

 

Thank you!! The same can be said for subsidizing the hetero’s choice to have children. I have seen an huge increase in the last ten years on the amount of slack that I have to pick up for people with children. It was bad enough compensating for working women with children, but now, every time a child farts wrong, I have fathers calling in with sick children. I can’t tell you the number of times that my work life is impacted by someone else’s child care issues.

 

My company already offers ten weeks of paid maternity leave for every child a women produces, and beginning next year, they have added another two weeks for both males and females for “bonding” time. Those of us without children are just supposed to pick up the slack and do their work while they are bonding with their kids. And oh, by the way, we mustn’t let that impact their job assignments and career opportunities.

 

I know it sounds cold and petty for me to be so annoyed with this, but I really do resent it. In a very real way, children are investments. Even if they don’t take care of you, the chances are that they will enrich your life in your later years. I believe that I will probably have some regrets in my old age when I don’t have the kids and grandkids around.

 

I believe that I will pay a price for my childless status. Which is why it irks me no end that I am forced to pay a price now – for other people’s investments!

[theDCeBOY]

but you're the one who wants to work OUTSIDE the system. you don't want to emulate the straight version, but you want it funded the same way?

hypocrisy!

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Gay Marriage - a Conservative Idea - NOT

 

David Brooks is often on television and, in discussing this topic, he himself has acknowledged that his position (pro-marriage for ALL) is not the conservative opinion, is not favored by the religious right, social conservatives, OR even by many of the major Democratic candidates for President or major Democrats.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>but you're the one who wants to work

>OUTSIDE the system. you don't want to emulate the straight

>version, but you want it funded the same way?

>hypocrisy!

 

No, I'm the one who wants the system to stop privileging married people over unmarried people.