Saturday, August 8, 2009

Once More Into the Fray

I confess that I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with both Jim and Pete (see Treebeard’s comment: “I am not altogether on anybody's side, because nobody is altogether on my side”), and I thought I might clarify a few things.

1. Believe it or not, I think that Pete’s argument that refusing the right to marry to same sex couples is a civil rights issue – a denial of equal protection of the laws -- is a perfectly principled position and, indeed, some courts have adopted it. But, I think it has problems.

First up, marriage, like social security, is targeted for a particular segment of the population. Social security, for policy reasons, is restricted to the elderly. Nobody else gets it. Marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples. The elderly get social security because it’s been judged that they have a greater difficulty earning a living than younger folks. Heterosexual couples get to have marriage for the sake of the kids they are raising.

Now, you can argue that that’s not a perfect fit: lots of married couples don’t have kids and lots of same sex couples do. (But, I suspect that more heterosexual couples have kids than same sex couples.) The thing is, you can make the same argument about social security: some elderly people are doing very well earning an income, and some younger people are not. For what it’s worth, courts have long held that perfect fits in legislation are not required and probably not possible. The point is that there is some justification for distinguishing between straights and gays when it comes to marriage other than we hate you.

The other and more important thing is that, for a court to tell a state that, if it’s going to sanction marriages, it must include same-sex couples, is to seriously step out over the abyss. Not there this means anything in the absolute sense, but there is zero precedent as far as I know in the annals of Western Civilization for this, and courts like precedent. All I’m saying is that this is a lot to ask of a judge.

2. And so, while I see the civil rights point of view, I think that there’s a better argument for same sex marriage: it’s a good idea, not just for gay people but for straight people as well. It’s a good idea because the children of gay parents – either by adoption or conception – deserve to have two married parents just like the kids of heterosexual couples. As Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, “I support it [gay marriage] because I think family is a societal good--which benefits me individually. Raise your kid right, and I don't have to worry about him sticking up my kid.” I’d call it the “No Child Left Behind Act” except somebody already took that name.

Second, there is the whole public health issue. For some time now, we’ve faced an epidemic of STD’s, and the epidemic is more widespread among gays. I can’t think of anything stupider than to say, oh, I don’t care what gays do privately but I just don’t want them getting married. I say, not that gay couples may marry, but they must marry. If everyone would limit themselves to one sexual partner in a lifetime, STD’s could be eliminated. The sacrifice would be totally worth it, because it would permit future generations to have as many sex partners as they wanted with minimal health risk.

Beyond that, we know that marriage is good for your health, particularly for men. Married people live longer than single or divorced individuals. (This is true for women, but it’s truer for men.) Men and women who are married have lower rates of substance abuse and alcohol consumption than unmarried individuals; they have a much lower suicide rates; they live more healthy life styles, and engage in less risky behavior. (Apparently, married couples take to heart the song-line, “Take good care of yourself; you belong to me.”) Oh, and by the way, cohabitating couples do not see any of these health benefits. See mystical aspects of marriage discussed below.

Jim points out in his blog entry that heterosexuals live longer than gays. No wonder – gays can’t get the health benefits of marriage. In any event, I have no doubt that one way of reducing our health costs is to let gays marry. If you want your insurance premiums lowered, vote for same-sex marriage.

Finally, we know from the history of race relations in this country that marginalizing people is always a bad idea. Check out how well things are going in Europe with their Muslim immigrants. By marginalizing gays, we straight people shoot ourselves in the foot. If people have a stake in society, they work to make that society better. By allowing gays to marry, you give them that stake; they become full-fledged citizens just like everyone else. And there’s the related satisfaction of having an all-inclusive society. Again, turning to Coates: “I simply don't enjoy living in a country that discriminates. That's my feeling. That's about what I want, how I want to live.”

I agree with Jim that same sex marriage is a happiness issue. The fact is, despite all the jokes, marriage makes people happy. It also makes the people around them happy.

3. As to Jim’s other points, sure, we’re doing something new and basically untried with gay marriage. But, no doubt there were plenty of naysayers when the American colonists decided to create a democracy or when we were debating whether to give women the vote – arguing that this would upset the cosmic applecart. In fact, how many practices were followed for thousands of years that we now find appalling? Again, I fail to see anything compelling about the argument that, because we’ve always done it this way, it must be right. “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true. . . .” Noam Chomsky.

I also agree with Jim that there is something mystical about marriage. What’s more mystical than “the two shall become one?” But, in my experience, the mystical is often at odds with the religious. The fact is: historical religions are run by flawed human beings who often get things wrong. The religious defense of slavery alone shows how wrong they can be. I think that it’s better to listen to Jesus on this one: "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?” Luke 12:57.

Finally, yes, I said that there are bigger fish to fry. And if my fairy Godmother suddenly showed up and said she'd grant me just one wish, universal health care or gay marriage, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd go with the universal health care. But that doesn't mean you can't be passionate about more than one thing at a time.

9 comments:

James R said...

I think this is a very thoughtful and reasonable post. You wrote a lot of things which I would have tried to say over a few beers, but I would not have said as well.

Again, my purpose was to try to show that there are arguments (without spending a lot of time doing it). If the issue were the subject of a debate team exercise, you could be asked to defend either side.

Two brief, minor points:
1. I didn't mean to imply that a long history makes something desirable, but, as you did, to ask the question, "What made marriage such a force in both a Darwinian and a historical/societal way?" Marriage is kind of a unique and strange institution. Why did it ever get established and grow to such a powerful force?

2. Also, we were thinking along the same lines as to civil rights. You know better than I the civil rights/benefits of marriage, but I also think they mostly relate to raising a family. Surely a single mother or grandmother or the union of a mother-grandmother should qualify for the same civil benefits, but few would call that a marriage. There is definitely a civil rights issue, I just think there are other issues involved.

Big Myk said...

Jim, I think that it's a dangerous game to guess at the what natural selection found so attractive in us humans. Among other things, this view ends up endorsing a multitude of sins. Astounding inhumanity, tyranny, endless warfare, conquest, slavery have long been part of human history. Dare we abandon them for fear that in so doing we will lose our evolutionary edge. Even Darwin came around to advocate that social policy should not be based on ideas of natural selection.

The other problem with your argument is that marriage has not been the big driving force you seem to think it is. Rather, throughout most of history, powerful men scooped up most of the women, shutting out most guys from ever contributing their genes to posterity. Until very recently, polygynous [one man, several women] arrangements of marriage or cohabitation were the norm, and strict monogamy was an exception. Barely one in six of the 1,195 societies surveyed in the largest anthropological dataset have been classified as "monogamous."

My buddy Roy Baumeister makes the point that recent research using DNA analysis shows that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. In other words, if 80% of women reproduced over the history of humankind, only 40% of men reproduced. That is, most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.

You can see the evolutionary advantage to this arrangement. One, very strong, smart, physically powerful man adds lots of genetic material to the next generation, but less brilliant, weaker men end up with their less desirable genes removed from the gene pool. (Was this even so bad for women? Everybody got to marry the captain of the football team.)

So, if we're playing with fire, it was switching from polygyny to monogamy. We still have our alpha males -- powerful politicians or captains of industry who get lots of babes -- but by and large we're much more egalitarian with our genes. Guys who never had a chance before are passing their second-rate genes to the next generation.

So, if you are worried about our evolutionary edge, I'd stop worrying about gay marriage -- which won't have much impact at all on future generations no mater how you slice it -- and I'd take up the cause of polygyny.

Peter H of Lebo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter H of Lebo said...

"Heterosexual couples get to have marriage for the sake of the kids they are raising." Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I have already talked about this but...
The government already knows your children are apart of your family (unless you are gay of course). Have any of you read the rights and responsibilities of marriage, nothing to do with children except when divorcing. Its all about the government dealing with two people not blood related becoming related in the eyes of the state.

The social security example is again a terrible example-I am pretty sure young peoples' rights are not infringed because old people can buy jell-o. Also, please leave evolution out of this debate, its is a ridiculous argument. Darwinian science also says that rape is a normal part of evolution, lets the less fortunate physically pass on their genes-that doesn't make it right. We are not going to create an institution to protect the rapist of our population just because it is natural.

I have no idea why "bigger fish to fry" was even brought up. It is no surprise Myk would choose health care (it affects him) over gay rights if he had to choose. Just like he probable cared more to end the draft for fear of going to Vietnam and people dying needlessly versus blacks being able to sit in the front of the bus. This is not an argument against gay civil rights. Its like when I bang my head and someone tells me stop worrying about the pain there is a war going on in Iraq- a far more important issue, my head still hurts nonetheless. I hate the phrase "bigger fish to fry", it brings nothing to the table and detracts from the intellectual conversation.

Guys, gay marriage right has no impact on us other than it is a moral obligation to rid our government of discrimination and oppression.

Finally since I haven't had a chance to talk with Jim, the arguments you presented do not gain credibility just because it is someone's opinions and beliefs. Just because a neo-nazis thinks Jews should be purged from this earth doesn't mean we should consider their view point during policy making. This is why I compared your arguments to the Moon made of cheese and Global Warming is god's love. Just because somebody believes them doesn't give their opinions legitimacy.

Myk, is the abyss the courts would be stepping into the one about protecting rights of Americans or the one God opens up to swallow the heathens for allowing two gays to marry?

Peter H of Lebo said...

Also Myk, you may prioritize health care while a gay couple may prioritize same-sex marriage. This does not make one greater than another which is another reason why "bigger fish to fry" is retarded.

Big Myk said...

Have any of you read the rights and responsibilities of marriage, nothing to do with children except when divorcing. Its all about the government dealing with two people not blood related becoming related in the eyes of the state.

-This is not quite true. Marriage gives both partners joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records. It also gives the couple the option of joint adoption of children (as your article points out, non-married couples cannot jointly adopt.) But overall, I agree with the statement. The point is that marriage laws, like the right to inherit without a will or the right to pension benefits, provide ways of encouraging couples to stay together, again, presumably for the benefit of their children. Marriage is a collection of modest bribes offered by the state to encourage two parent families.

Also, please leave evolution out of this debate, it is a ridiculous argument.

-I agree wholeheartedly. That’s what I thought I was trying to say above. I can’t think that I’ve ever taken a political position because I thought it would boost humanity’s chances with the forces of natural selection.

Guys, gay marriage right has no impact on us other than it is a moral obligation to rid our government of discrimination and oppression.

-I totally disagree for the reasons I’ve already stated. If you want to live a healthier, safer, more inclusive and more interesting society in which poorly supervised children of single gays and lesbians aren’t stealing your hubcaps, support gay marriage. And, if gays aren’t marginalized, you’ll have a better shot at celebrating Halloween with them, another plus for straight people. See Ellen about that one.

Also Myk, you may prioritize health care while a gay couple may prioritize same-sex marriage.

-I suppose a gay couple might give same sex marriage priority over health care reform. But, while I concede that I have no proof, I bet that there are many gays and lesbians who, if given the choice, would rather have health care which didn’t exist at the whim of the insurance industry than the right to marry. After all, if you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything. If you could show me that 22,000 people – the number who die annually from lack of health insurance – die each year from the ban on same sex marriage, I’d reconsider my position. My preference is to have both. The “bigger fish to fry” comment was made, not to defend my views, but Obama’s, who won’t touch the third-rail of gay marriage.

This does not make one greater than another which is another reason why "bigger fish to fry" is retarded.

-OK, now you’re picking on the disabled.

Peter H of Lebo said...

I was referring to Jim about evolution topic, sorry for the lack of clarification, your postulating was funny. Not sure why you are defending Obama's, he isn't perfect and down right wrong at times fyi. I am pretty sure people don't die from lack of insurance, instead people usually die from illnesses. Of the over 1000 rights of marriage you list access to children's school records for step mothers and fathers adoptive parents, like I said little to do with children-thats what parenting laws are for. Health care over gay marriage is not an argument against gay marriage. You have yet to give just one reason why gay marriage should not be allowed- one idea that legitimizes another side. Finally, I don't go out on pagan holidays, I hate cars, hubcaps, children and the disabled.

Also, not sure how health care, evolution, and halloween found its way into a gay rights talk.

Big Myk said...

First off, I'm not sure why we're arguing at all. I totally, unequivocally, flat-out support gay marriage. I agree with you that there isn't a thimble-full of sense in the opposition's arguments.

I've been reading Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog lately. I'm not sure that he's totally right, but he's got me thinking. He says this about making the argument for gay marriage:

Our challenge is not to appeal to some soft, mealy-mouthed, mushy, "we're all in this together" sentimentalism, but to make a strong, direct argument for why A.) Discriminating against gays directly hurts you, individually B.) Why, collectively, they should want to live in a country that encourages family--sexual orientation aside. The evidence for both claims is not hard to come by. . . .

And no question, the need for health care reform in no way argues against gay marriage. But as to the uninsured and mortality, here's the link to the Institute of Medicine Report (I still can't figure out how to put a hyperlink in the comments): http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/uninsurance012008.pdf

Peter I said...

On a related note. Alleghney County passed a law at the beginning of July which bans discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Pittsburgh has had similar protections since early 90s.(Biggest opponent was of course the Diocese). Legislation on state level has never made much progress. Someone called called my organization a few months ago saying a landlord told him "we don't rent to fags." He lived outside the city limits. We couldn't help him. Now we can.