(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

The End of Marriage in Two Rhetorical Steps
01/05/2004

It's difficult to know what to address about Jeff Soyer's post in response to a column by William Murchison. The difficulty derives mainly from my schedule, because the entire post could be dismantled and addressed almost to the sentence. Most obvious are Soyer's dreadful mischaracterizations of the Bible and biblical history, as well as his ad hominem attacks on Murchison. In this respect, Soyer's is like an aggregation of the very worst of false "common knowledge" in this area.

Many of these barbs sprout from a fairly egregious misrepresentation of the position of those who hold that the key benefit to the public of individual marriages is procreation. Here's the relevant text from Murchison:

No heterosexual relationship, no procreation. No procreation, no human future. That is where the state's interest in this thing comes in. It comes in also in consideration of the massive evidence supporting the heterosexual family as the most successful setting for training up the products of conception, namely, children.

Soyer discards that last sentence to justify this riff (ital. in original):

So if procreating is the only reason for marraige, then why bother with marriage at all? Obviously being in love with one another isn't a factor. Caring for and pooling resources isn't a concern. Taking care of each other when sick doesn't produce a baby so why do or encourage it? Wouldn't it be better if women just lay on gurneys in a government facility somewhere with their legs up and men could just stop by and do their thing? Then the women would just pop-out the children and there'd be plenty of procreating for all.

Putting aside that Soyer changes emphasis from public policy to individual motivation (a significantly different question), by skipping Murchison's mention of the longer-term commitment of actual parenthood, Soyer allows himself to dismiss the very heart of marriage. Granted, it was an oversight on Murchison's part not to state so explicitly, but in the context of the larger discussion, it is clear that procreation followed by "training up" indicates that marriage is meant to encourage people to have children and to raise them in a stable household with their own parents. Sex will happen and, therefore, procreation will happen. Marriage is meant to channel this inevitability into an institution that makes it a positive benefit for society, rather than the drain that childbirth becomes out of wedlock.

Of course, the continuation of the human race isn't the only benefit of marriage for society, and thus Soyer's argument goes (ital. in original):

Personally though, I think the state should encourage marriage and between both heterosexuals and homosexuals since people involved in a loving, stable union are much more likely to be good and productive citizens who also care about their fellow humans and society as a whole. It's also economically desirable for society because two people in such a union -- marriage -- provide the first line of defense against poverty, caring during an illness, maintenance of a home, and generally provide a better model of citizenship and participation for the town or village they live in. Otherwise, the state would have to provide for this at great burden to the taxpayer.

While I'll concede that Soyer is correct that strong relationships result in all of these benefits, and that they are benefits not just to the individuals, but also to society, it is plain that he lacks a linchpin that would make this a case for equating gay marriage to plain ol' hetero marriage: There is no reason — and no logical or legal argument — that such "unionized" individuals need be sexually intimate. For the social service of mutual care, any two (or more) people will do.

For one who makes multiple appeals to the force of logic (as Soyer does), it oughtn't be difficult to see that the "loving, stable union" between a man and a woman is unique among the variations in its ability to generate children. Thus, we have the argument from those whom Soyer ridicules: The distinctive quality of heterosexual marriage, that which merits its public recognition as a uniquely beneficial institution, is ultimately the two-part, fluid practice of procreation and childrearing. If one admits relationships to the marriage fold that are biologically excluded from this complete process, one devalues it in the way that Soyer dismisses without consideration in this passage:

As for the claim by Murchison (and others) that gay marriage somehow "undermines" traditional marriage, that is nonsense. How can encouraging more people to marry hurt the foundation of current marriages? Logically, that makes absolutely no sense.

The meaning-changing leap that is somehow not apparent to a surprising (disheartening) number of people — of reasonable intelligence and apparent goodwill — is from undermining the traditional institution of marriage to undermining specific, already formed "current marriages." It is in the delta between "marriage" and "marriages" created by this discontinuous thinking wherein Soyer provides proof of the very suggestion that he mocks. "Encouraging more people to marry" — which is to say, encouraging people who do not wish to enter into traditional marriages to marry in some different way — robs marriage of its import and, ultimately, its ability to deliver the benefits that make it sufficiently crucial to justify exclusive public recognition.

ADDENDUM:
Just because Soyer takes such glee in it, I want to quickly correct his reading of a particular passage in the Bible that is representative either of his misunderstanding of scripture or his distortion of Christians' thinking. He writes, "Public prayer (such as on TV or at a football game or commencement speech or school) is frowned upon by God (Matthew 6:5-6*)." The asterisk is meant to direct the reader to the scriptural "evidence" noted by the citation:

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret

I don't think that even needs to be put into context for the meaning to be clear. Considering that, by Soyer's reading, Jesus would have disapproved of religious gatherings in synagogues and churches, it is obvious that the key phrase is "that they may be seen." For the purpose of being seen, not for the purpose of offering prayer. To be sure, the forms of "public prayer" that Soyer lists can be used toward the former purpose, but that doesn't mean that they are by definition. After all, Jesus also said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20)

Posted by Justin Katz @ 12:26 AM EST