Suppose a highway robber points a gun at Mr. Smith and demands all of Smith's money. Then suppose that Mr. Smith protests, and the robber settles for only half of Smith's money.

Have they reached a compromise? Did the robber give up anything he actually had before meeting Smith, or did he merely settle for less swag...this time?

You see, a real compromise would involve both parties giving up something they have to get something they want. Demanding all my money, but settling for only half of it (this time) is not a compromise, it is a just robbery on a smaller scale.

One thing that is not clear to me in Mr. Ponnuru's Option 4, or this proposal, is exactly what the homosexual lobby loses that they have now. What do they give up in exchange for something? How is this "compromise" different from a partial surrender?

notdhimmi,

What I tried to explain in this post is that a compromise in the sense used here isn't a negotiated settlement between activist groups, but a resolution that the broader public believes is fair to impose on all sides.

Furthermore, you're reacting as if Ramesh and I have put forward specific proposals, such as might describe the means of implementation. What we're actually doing is proposing ideas that would have to be honed into policies. In my vision, which I've expressed here and elsewhere before, a constitutional amendment would ensure that SSM supporters "give up" efforts to win SSM through the courts and even through simple legislation. The "civil union" component of my solution is what SSM opponents "give up" to gain sufficient support for the amendment.

What I tried to explain in this post is that a compromise in the sense used here isn't a negotiated settlement between activist groups, but a resolution that the broader public believes is fair to impose on all sides.

Except that this "compromise" is to be imposed upon the general public, not on the SSM activists. "Marriage-lite" appears to merely be a way station on the journey to SSM, and beyond. Judging by what I read from the "queer theory" people, SSM is merely part of a much larger plan to destroy the family as we know it, in the name of "liberation". The fact that this takes a jackhammer to the cornerstone of Western civilization doesn't seem to bother anyone on the pro-SSM side one bit.

Furthermore, you're reacting as if Ramesh and I have put forward specific proposals, such as might describe the means of implementation.

I'm pointing out the obvious: giving in to demands tends to lead to more demands. The irony of it all can be seen in the tiny number of homosexuals in European countries such as Sweden, and in Canada, who have actually taken advantage of marriage. This makes it clear that the goal is something else...

What we're actually doing is proposing ideas that would have to be honed into policies.

Supporters of Neville Chamberlin no doubt felt the same way.

In my vision, which I've expressed here and elsewhere before, a constitutional amendment would ensure that SSM supporters "give up" efforts to win SSM through the courts and even through simple legislation.

That's going to be needed anyway. The recent Federal judge who told the citizens of Nebraska "You have no right to amend your own State Constitution" tells me where this is going. However, those that support a real defense of marriage amendment are not likely to support "marriage lite", so far as I can see; those that support "marriage lite" will also oppose the defense of marriage in any form.

The "civil union" component of my solution is what SSM opponents "give up" to gain sufficient support for the amendment.

I doubt very much it will work out that way. The Kennedy-O'Connor Court has shown that it will expand Federal power when and where it pleases, to further pet causes. It looks like we may not get a national _Goodridge_ decision this term, but that's cold comfort. Once SSM has been rammed down our throats, to the delight of the homosexual community (including "gay conservatives"), then the real fight begins to counter the attack with a defense of marriage amendment. While that is going on, the poly-marriage groups will demand their "rights" to marriage (possibly allying with the radical Islamists), adding to the crisis.

So you and Mr. Ponnuru had better modify the "compromise" to allow any number of players, for a start. Is it still looking like a good idea?

I am not sure the compromise will work because it still creates a "separate yet (un)equal" system that may be both constitutionally unsatisfactory and fails to satisfy the belief by SSM supporters that same-sex relationships should be viewed "on par" with opposite-sex marriage and not relegated to the category of "buddy relationships" entered into by college roommates, frat brothers, and spinsters.

Despite with "not" believes, most gays and lesbians aren't interested in destroying the family. Why would we be working so hard to get into an institution just to destroy it???? Instead, the struggle is for equality. Your compromise maintains a "back of the bus" and "separate water fountain" approach to marriage that fails to grasp the significance of what gays and lesbians want.

I am not sure the compromise will work because it still creates a "separate yet (un)equal" system that may be both constitutionally unsatisfactory and fails to satisfy the belief by SSM supporters that same-sex relationships should be viewed "on par" with opposite-sex marriage and not relegated to the category of "buddy relationships" entered into by college roommates, frat brothers, and spinsters.

Despite with "not" believes, most gays and lesbians aren't interested in destroying the family. Why would we be working so hard to get into an institution just to destroy it???? Instead, the struggle is for equality. Your compromise maintains a "back of the bus" and "separate water fountain" approach to marriage that fails to grasp the significance of what gays and lesbians want.

Res Ipsa writes:
I am not sure the compromise will work because it still creates a "separate yet (un)equal" system that may be both constitutionally unsatisfactory and fails to satisfy the belief by SSM supporters that same-sex relationships should be viewed "on par" with opposite-sex marriage and not relegated to the category of "buddy relationships" entered into by college roommates, frat brothers, and spinsters.

I reproduce this because it makes the point clear: there can be no "compromise" that will satisfy the homosexual lobby. Nothing less than full-throated total approval will satisfy them.

Despite with "not" believes, most gays and lesbians aren't interested in destroying the family. Why would we be working so hard to get into an institution just to destroy it????

The evidence from Europe and Canada is clear: when marriage is made available to homosexuals, only a tiny fraction take advantage of it. Therefore Res Ipsa's claim above that most homosexuals want to get married simply is not true, it is false. Since most homosexuals do not want to get married, the next question that logically arises is this: what's the real purpose behind the push for SSM? Is it not just a step on a longer road? The article The Queer Argument Against Marriage rather strongly suggests this is so.

It is always easier to undermine an institution in a series of steps, than in one jump, and much easier from within than from outside. Searching Google for "Queer theory" or "Deconstructing marriage" provides plenty of reading on the topic that is much broader than we have seen on this web log. Some may find it rather eye opening, and some may not...some may even not want these topics discussed.

But attacking the "heteronormative" is a rallying cry for at least some parts of the homosexual lobby, and SSM is only part of that attack. The demand to redefine marriage such that any group of two or more people of any age and any combination of gender can be "married" ultimately will lead to the institution being rendered meaningless...and it is trivial to find people who desire that end.

Is it still looking like a good idea?

What's not looking like a good idea is engaging in discussion with somebody who so quickly compares me with Neville Chamberlain. You may consider yourself to have the advantage of being ideologically pure, but it would still be unwise to tick off allies even as close in worldview as I am.

You're taking an awfully binary view of the sides in this. The numbers of people whose feelings are so strong, either way, that they aren't open to what appears to be a middle road are limited. You didn't really answer my question, in the previous thread, about your solution. How do you propose to stop the trend?

You apparently are intending to wait for national SSM by judicial fiat and then to leverage the resulting outrage to pass an amendment. Well, what if the outrage falls short of the motivation needed for the arduous amendment process?

I am not sure the compromise will work because it still creates a "separate yet (un)equal" system

I disagree that compromises such as civil union undermine equality. Same-sex relationships are qualitatively different from opposite-sex relationships, and that difference is material to the institution of marriage.

This is the crucial difference between same-sex civil union and racial segregation. Race is completely immaterial to the use of schools, public bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc., and therefore racial segregation of these accommodations cannot be justified.

I wrote:
Is it still looking like a good idea?

Justin Katz replied:
What's not looking like a good idea is engaging in discussion with somebody who so quickly compares me with Neville Chamberlain.

If the comparison is bothersome, then perhaps you should reconsider your position. I'll repeat the obviously annoying question in larger form: are you prepared to offer this "marriage lite" to polygamous Muslims and splinter-church (excommunicated) Mormons, to 'triads', and to other groups? Because a demand for that is likely to follow. Are you prepared for the SSM supporters to break their word by taking the "marriage lite" you offer and continuing to press for full SSM anyway? If you have not considered how multiple groups of advocates will react to your proposal, you are setting yourself up for a surprise, and not a pleasant one. Chamberlin may or may not have really known what he was doing, but his supporters surely believed they were working for peace in their time. They didn't think hard enough, and got a nasty surprise, because they expected the group they were negotiating with to live up to certain basic norms...and apparently never considered that they might be dealing with people who had set out to destroy modern society & replace it with something else; people who would lie with a smile.

You may consider yourself to have the advantage of being ideologically pure, but it would still be unwise to tick off allies even as close in worldview as I am.

I'll bear that in mind the next time you patronizingly and smugly talk down to me as though I'd never given this issue a moment's thought or study.

You're taking an awfully binary view of the sides in this.

I'm taking a longer view that apparently anyone else on this weblog. Since I started reading more of the "Queer Theory" writings, it has become more obvious to me that SSM is part of a much wider arena of conflict. The very definition of "family" is clearly involved, for example, along with "heteronormity" and some other notions.

The numbers of people whose feelings are so strong, either way, that they aren't open to what appears to be a middle road are limited.

That is true at this time. That may not be so true in the long run.

You didn't really answer my question, in the previous thread, about your solution. How do you propose to stop the trend?

What makes you think it can be stopped, in the short run? Some number of elites in Western society have bought in to this idea and are determined to push it regardless of what we mere proles want. You know, a lot of people back in the early 1970's thought that unilateral divorce for no particular reason was a bad idea, but that didn't stop it from being enacted into law. Even now, with the damage wrought more obvious every day, the notion is so embedded into our culture that there's no real movement to reform the divorce code. We know the effects of broken homes on children from generations of studies, but there's no significant outcry to reform the laws, even though it would reduce a whole panoply of social ills, from poverty to crime to child abuse. Just for a start, too much money is being made by too many lawyers (and don't think there aren't some out there drooling over the multitude of court cases that redefining marriage will generate).

This is not to say that the defense of marriage is doomed to fail, but on the other hand, there is no guarantee of success, either.

You apparently are intending to wait for national SSM by judicial fiat and then to leverage the resulting outrage to pass an amendment.

No, I've merely outlined what I expect to happen, not some grand plan or other. The most likely course is for the US to drift along doing little or nothing about this issue, because on the one hand most people don't like the idea of SSM, but on the other hand they don't like to seem prejudiced. Most people will just wish the issue would go away without a fuss. Then the Kennedy-O'Connor court will impose SSM by judicial fiat, citing _Lawrence_ as precedent or demanding "full faith and credit" for _Goodridge_, or some other emanation of a penumbra I have never dreamed of. At that point there will be a serious effort on the part of some to enact a defense of marriage amendment. I can't even guess whether it will succeed or fail.

Well, what if the outrage falls short of the motivation needed for the arduous amendment process?

What happened when the outrage over _Roe_ fell short of the motivation needed to take that issue away from the courts?

I think you need to spend less time reading "queer theory" and more time talking to some actual, living breathing gays and lesbians. Most would tell you they don't have the slightest idea with alleged "queer theorists" are talking about and that they only want to get married to the person they love, create legal protections, possibly have children, and live a happy life.

Res Ipsa wrote:
I think you need to spend less time reading "queer theory" and more time talking to some actual, living breathing gays and lesbians.

I think that I'm going to read what I want to read, regardless of whether Res Ipsa or anyone else likes it. Anyone who wants to tell me what I can't read better bring some friends with them, it's likely to be too big a job for just one person.

Now then, I've been talking and more importantly listening to real, live homosexuals off and on for quite a long time, thanks. Few of them really evinced much of an interest in boring, bourgeois marriage, and at least back in the 80's the idea of settling down too much was regarded as not living "gay liberation" to the fullest. Sadly, some of those people are dead, because of their choices in acting out their "liberation". Interestingly enough, some of the real, live, breathing lesbians I've known not only have heard of "Queer theory", but have an opinion or two on the issue as well.

Most would tell you they don't have the slightest idea with alleged "queer theorists" are talking about and that they only want to get married to the person they love, create legal protections, possibly have children, and live a happy life.

That's interesting, because most of the homosexuals in Sweden, Netherlands and Canada have no interest in getting married at all, even though it is legal for them to do so, according to the marriage records of those countries. Res Ipsa's oft repeated claim does not match up with reality.

Well, perhaps the Chamberlain solution isn't but so bothersome anyway, considering:

Are you prepared for the SSM supporters to break their word by taking the "marriage lite" you offer and continuing to press for full SSM anyway?

Even if I'm coming across as patronizing and smug, I'm honestly attempting to understand your view of what should be done — in terms of action rather than fretting. Resist, resist, resist come what may strikes me as neither effective nor interesting to ponder. So what's to be done?

The fact of the matter is that I can't imagine a solution that would ensure that radicals don't chase their radical ends, and frankly if it's Chamberlainian to insist that these civil disputes remain civil, so be it. As it happens — and perhaps I was insufficiently clear about this in my piece and subsequent commentary — I'm counting on SSM supporters to continue pursuing their goal. Indeed, the objective of my "compromise" is to route that pursuit through civil unions to make that the front in which the marriage battle is fought.

Moreover — and this I've said explicitly — part of what I'm advocating for SSM opponents to do is to change the understanding of "civil union" so that it isn't "marriage lite." Rather, the point is to cast such unions as collections of benefits going to a distinct range of relationships. That is why, over the past couple of years, I've argued time and again that the various marriage amendments would and should allow legislatures to build civil unions from scratch, without the shortcut reference to marriage.

I'm not sure one year of marriages in Canada--where there is still some question about whether marriage will be nationalized--is an indication that very few gays are interesting in getting married. As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, there are lots of reasons that Canadians haven't jumped on the bandwagon yet and that it could take time. As for Sweden and the Netherlands, there is an argument that heterosexuals aren't that interesting in marriage in those countries too, so does that mean we shuold infer heterosexuals in the U.S. aren't interested in marriage?

As for recasting civil unions as some sort of lesser-than arrangement that would also be offered to college roommaties or single people and the friendly guy who dlivers UPS, I just don't see how that offers anything to same-sex couples. Getting a "less than" number of rights in a "less than" civil union doesn't really give people much. It's not even separate and unequal.

It isn't necessarily "less than." The point is that, state by state, gays would have to make the case for the rights in question without the too-simple (and plainly false, in many people's opinion) declaration that there is no difference between their relationships and those of married heterosexuals. They would also have to make the case that their sexual intimacy somehow gives them more claim to those rights than people in other relationships that entail mutual care.

I agree that these civil unions ought to be constructed such that people don't just pair up willy nilly. But it's curious: in citing concern about sharing a relationship type with college roommates, you've repeated a fear that I've expressed with SSM. In a world of unilateral no fault divorce and SSM, it wouldn't be surprising for friends (e.g., college roommates) to "marry" each other, with the plan to "divorce" at a certain time (graduation) or upon a certain event (actual marriage).

So basically, you refuse for gays alone what you would impose on the institution of marriage for all. As I've also said before, however, if SSM activists want to tie a repeal of no fault divorce to their cause...

So what if some states want to give "equal to" rights that are exactly the same as those available as marriage, would you by okay with that too. So if the enlightened citizens of Mass., RI, NJ, Conn., Calif., Oreg., NY, Hawaii, and Vt want to get the equivilant to marriage but just use your magic "marriage" word, would that be okay.

In other words if there are "free" states and "Jim Crowe" states, shouldn't the free states be able to give as many benefits as they wish?

As for no-fault divorce, maybe it's not a bad idea. But I am not sure your social conservative friends on the right are really that interested in divorce. Actually, I don't believe they really even care about marriage, they just hate gays. So the toughest sell against no-fault divorce wouldn't be amongst liberal, but amongst your Evangelical friends, who have the highest divorce rates of any church-going people.

That is so "spam" Res Ipsa. It's as bad as trying to sell miracle herbs/drugs that enlarge your tool. Nobody can back that up with any kind of statistic. Yet obviously you think there are people dumb enough to buy it, because here you are spouting it out again.

Anything in which all the benefits of marriage are offered as a package can well be called "marriage lite" and may well undermine marriage further. However, I have no problem with granting the benefits singularly. That is, if two unmarried people, gay, straight, sexual partners, or platonic friends, want to have both hospital visitation rights and the right of inheritance, for instance, they should be able to get them, they just would not be able to get one automatically with the other. If a couple is not married, they would still be able to get the legal incidents; they would just have to get each of them one by one rather than in a package.

Hopefully, having to go repeatedly to sign for legal incidents which they could have had in one package had they been married will be enough of an incentive to heterosexual couples to get married. Homosexuals would not have this option, but they would still be able to get the individual legal incidents, even though the way they would have to go about getting them would be more of an inconvenience.

Res: I am not sure the compromise will work because it still creates a "separate yet (un)equal" system that may be both constitutionally unsatisfactory and fails to satisfy the belief by SSM supporters that same-sex relationships should be viewed "on par" with opposite-sex marriage and not relegated to the category of "buddy relationships" entered into by college roommates, frat brothers, and spinsters.

Sorry, Res, but that's as much as I'm willing to grant, because same-sex relationships are not the same as opposite-sex ones.

NotDhimmi: You fail to realize that this issue of the legal benefits is what is being used by SSM advocates, and by a sympathetic media, to erode the opposition among heterosexuals to the idea of SSM, and that it is probably working. I think that one of the real reasons SSM advocates won't accept the compromise Ponnuru advocates, or the one I very roughly outlined here, is because they know it would knock the legs out from the strategy by which they hope to soften the public's opposition to SSM. All they would then have is the recognition factor. The majority of the public is less likely to be led to the idea that changing the definition of marriage is necessary for "fairness" if SSM advocates and the press can no longer use sob stories based on a couple being unable to obtain some one particular legal incident of marriage, particularly the automatic hospital visitation rights.

I'm afraid your approach, NotDhimmi, will only lead to the public being more quickly softened to the idea of SSM before the damaging results of it become clear. It will make it even more difficult to stop.

notdhimmi: Judging by what I read from the "queer theory" people, SSM is merely part of a much larger plan to destroy the family as we know it, in the name of "liberation".

This queer theory is just an extension of radical feminism, and both are just branded versions of marxism. The agenda has been clear for a long time, there's nothing new here.

res ipsa most gays and lesbians aren't interested in destroying the family. Why would we be working so hard to get into an institution just to destroy it???? Instead, the struggle is for equality.

Most mules aren't interested in the destination of the wagon, or who's driving it -- it's the carrot hanging off the stick that directs their path.

>> Justin: "a constitutional amendment would ensure that SSM supporters "give up" efforts to win SSM through the courts and even through simple legislation. The "civil union" component of my solution is what SSM opponents "give up" to gain sufficient support for the amendment."

Basically, the man-woman criterion of marriage would be protected and marriage advocates could then continue the hard work of strengthening the social institution with governmental as well as non-governmental supports. Favoring such an amendment and follow-up would not become officially a form of bigotry.

On the other side, some form of civil union would be available. This is the tricky part. If this would mean the Vermont-style of civil union, I could not support the proposal. That model is certainly marriage in all but name.

If "civil union" was redefinable, as you suggest the focus would fall, then, it would still be tricky because we want to maintain the unique status of marriage which means not elevating other statuses to the same height.

If the compromise included options such as reciprocal benefits, based on contracts and affidavits rather than relationship status, it would be much more viable across the country and all sides of the debate -- with the exception of the hardcore SSM activists who see anything short of SSM as stepping stones toward their ultimate goal. And they provided the impetus behind the court challenges that are all over the map as far as amendments, civil union alternatives, and the like.

You propose a good framework to consider the work needed to conserve and strengthen marriage while honoring the dignity of unmarriagable combinations, and yet I hesitate to concede any ground in protection of the special status, and special rights, that arise from the social institution of marriage.

>> Res Ipsa: "I think you need to spend less time reading "queer theory" and more time talking to some actual, living breathing gays and lesbians."

Been there, done, that for years, continue to do that. I agree that the general view is not openly hostile to family, as per the queer theorists, but I think your read of the opinion of typical gay men and lesbians and their potential influence is mistaken by a large margin.

I wish it was otherwise.

My strong firsthand impression is that just about everybody who is not an SSM activists really wants the debate to go away. In the long run, that ambiguity in action is what the activists count on. Look at Connecticut and Vermont as examples where there is no room for compromise developed out of redefining 'civil union' as something other than a relationship status on part with marital status.

on par with, not part with.

The problem with the compromise is it is stil discrimination and violation of equal protection, thus constitutionally unsound in many states. Just as saying Blacks could have their own inferior schools was not constitutionally sound, not will giving gays an inferiror legal reltionship be constitutionally sound.

Just as saying Blacks could have their own inferior schools was not constitutionally sound, not will giving gays an inferiror legal reltionship be constitutionally sound.

That's just it though -- two men or two women are an inferior marriage, by definition. Is allowing (much less legally accrediting) such a "separate but equal" institution constitutionally sound?

Simply put, Res, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equals. One has the potential of producing children; the other never does.

What, we have all asked repeatedly, is marriage "about"? Many answer that it's about reproduction, but I think what few want to say is that the history of human society also makes it clear that it's "about" the sexual activity which leads to reproduction, even though it does not always do so.

What SSM will be saying is that marriage is about any form of human bodily contact engaged in for the purpose of pleasure, and ultimately thus that it need not even be about that. It's the effect of this, in turn, that we need to be concerned about.

I'm sure some will deny this (Res undoubtedly will go into strict legalisms and deny that culture and tradition mean anything), and some on the anti-SSM side will argue that I shouldn't "go there", but is this not cutting to the pith of the matter?

Go with that argument. Can't wait to see the advertising campaign that says, "Marriage isn't about love and commitment, it's about screwing." Even better, the legal argument where you say, "We need to discriminate in the provision of legal rights because this is about screwing."

Go with that argument. Can't wait to see the advertising campaign that says, "Marriage isn't about love and commitment, it's about screwing."

I'm not interested in an "advertising campaign", but it would not be that hard to point out that SSM would effectively say that acts which can never produce children are "equal" to the only act which can. And sorry, Res, marriage is not just about "love and commitment"; if it were, tell me why children can't then marry their own parents. You're the one who wants SSM because you don't want gay relationships to be seen as on a par with "buddy relationships", as you call them. It seems to me that you thus believe that marriage is "about" sex, except that you mean any act which can be referred to as "sex" if it is an expression of love. My position is that this distorts the meaning of marriage. Marriage is about love and commitment; yes, but it's also about children, and thus, yes, it's also about the act which produces children, regardless of whatever colloquial pejorative you may wish to apply to it to attempt to mock this. This has been understood even if not expressed succinctly in words throughout human history.

By the way, Res, as one who likes to argue that SSM opponents are merely motivated by hatred of gays, and who believes that tradition is meaningless, what is your opinion of Lee Harris' article, referred to above by Justin? Silly for me to ask, I guess.

I think Harris is a provocative writer and thinker, although I don't agree with him. It's well thought out and well-grounded, conservative thinking.

Like alot of Conservatives, he's constructed a fairly fundamentalist idea of tradition. Since I am not a conservative, I am not nearly impressed with this tradition worship and would point to the many things that have been viewed as "tradition" through time that have been able to survive alterations or even disappear when "tradition" clashed with modernity.

Res,
He may not be an activist, but he is not a Conservative. Farther down in the article(very near the end), he stated that he is 'Gay'.

notdhimmi, replying to res:
"I think you need to spend less time reading "queer theory" and more time talking to some actual, living breathing gays and lesbians."

I think that I'm going to read what I want to read, regardless of whether Res Ipsa or anyone else likes it.

While it is certainly in your right to read "queer theory", limiting yourself to only that is like reading nothing but Elaine Pagels to try to understand Catholism. Try reading some Rauch or Wolfson.

Chairm:
Been there, done, that for years, continue to do that. I agree that the general view is not openly hostile to family, as per the queer theorists, but I think your read of the opinion of typical gay men and lesbians and their potential influence is mistaken by a large margin.

Do you want to elaborate on why? As the radical gays paved the way for gay rights and exposure of homosexuality, it makes it easier for more conservative, non-radical "middle Americans" to come out. Americans who don't want to be defined or ostracized by their sexuality; who don't want to draw any attention to that. There was a conservative backlash against radical feminism, which was only possible after the radical feminists broke ground for women's equality. Exactly what leads you do believe that this won't happen with gays?

R.K.:
By the way, Res, as one who likes to argue that SSM opponents are merely motivated by hatred of gays, and who believes that tradition is meaningless, what is your opinion of Lee Harris' article, referred to above by Justin? Silly for me to ask, I guess.

Lee Harris has a misguided, skewed view of tradtion, which, upon further inspection you realize he never really defines. Even if we take on face value his approach, his conclusion ranges from enshrining homosexuality as sin to fascism. I'm interested in Justin's take. I've already taken the liberty...
http://thirdofthemonth.typepad.com/thirdofthemonth/2005/06/homespun_and_co.html

"He may not be an activist, but he is not a Conservative. Farther down in the article(very near the end), he stated that he is 'Gay'."

Oh that's right, gay's can't be conservative. Silly me.

If Conservatives can't be gay, you better tell that Ken Mehlman, Matt Drudge, David Dreier, Jim Kolbe, Bill Paxon and Grover Norquist.

And I should tell them what, why?

Perhaps you are too use to thinking of the Republican political party as being only full of Conservatives. The last I remember about that is that being a Conservative wasn't a requirement for being in the Republican political party.

But I think it is interesting that you would classify him as a Conservative. I'm hazarding a guess here mind you; but I'm thinking that would be in light of the fact that in the article Justin links, Harris comes a lot closer to an understanding of the purpose of marriage and the role of the family than do SSM proponents. And the fact that he is advocating against SSM is another reason that you guys don't want him anywhere near your camp.

I'm not sure how he would classify himself, although since he writes almost exclusively for conservative magazines and blogs and his views are overwhelmingly influenced by conservative political thinking, it's fair to say he's a conservative.

The fact that you may not want him because he's gay doesn't change the fact that he appears fairly conservative. I would think you'd embrace his brilliance, but since he has sex with men you aren't interested in acknowledging him.

Res,

Since I am not a conservative, I am not nearly impressed with this tradition worship and would point to the many things that have been viewed as "tradition" through time that have been able to survive alterations or even disappear when "tradition" clashed with modernity.

I'm not aware of anyone, Harris included, who claims that we need to rotely favor tradition. Well, that's not quite accurate - there are some reactionaries who reject all change, or claim to. But they are not very numerous, and don't have much effect on the public discussion. The question is, how much importance does one place on tradition? And how does one think we should evaluate proposed changes to tradition? And how do we figure out which traditions are vitally important, and which can be changed without serious harm to society? We had a discussion about this earlier on DITL regarding Chesterton's fence. Res is correct, I think, that typically speaking conservatives are more deferential to tradition than liberals (who sometimes call themselves progressives, which is basically a direct repudiation of tradition).

A more interesting point brought up by this comment, though, is whether the said cases where tradition gave way to modernity, as you put it, were actually beneficial. Clearly the tradition of racial bigotry wasn't something that we should have kept. And clearly treating women as equals in the political process was a just change to tradition. But there are many other aspects of modernity that have been highly detrimental to society, including the widespread rejection of religion, the widespread rejection of the traditional family, the spread of constant entertainment and concommitant decrease in attention span/work ethic, etc. And of course as we've discussed endlessly here on DITL, the so-called "sexual revolution" has had numerous negative effects on society, to put it mildly. Now, many of these things have beneficial sides to them, or are problematic because the took a good idea too far, but the fact that modernity has created numerous negative effects on society, as well as the beneficial ones, means that simply saying that "well, some traditions deserve to die" is begging the question: which traditions should stay, and which should go?

Actually Res, I think it is quite acceptable that he is an opponent to SSM. That I will not acknowledge him as being a conservative is quite a different matter. His brilliance on the other hand is a matter of conjecture. While he comes closer to understanding the purpose of marriage and the role of the family in society, he still is at least half way off the mark.

R.K. says:

Anything in which all the benefits of marriage are offered as a package can well be called "marriage lite" and may well undermine marriage further. However, I have no problem with granting the benefits singularly. That is, if two unmarried people, gay, straight, sexual partners, or platonic friends, want to have both hospital visitation rights and the right of inheritance, for instance, they should be able to get them, they just would not be able to get one automatically with the other. If a couple is not married, they would still be able to get the legal incidents; they would just have to get each of them one by one rather than in a package.

The problem (offering benefits to unmarried twosomes without undermining marriage) can be solved much more simply:

1) Create this new status, call it "civil union" or "declaration of mutual dependence" if you will, which IS a singular package of benefits, but ...

2) The incidents of this status are specifically enumerated by the legislature, and are not necessarily identical to those of marriage, and ...

3) The "mutual dependence" status is NOT available to any two people who are legally eligible to marry each other, or if either is already married to someone else.

This clarifies that the new status is something separate from marriage, and removes any incentive for its use as "marriage lite" by heterosexual couples. It also does not privilege non-marital sexual relationships over other relationships.

If "civil union" is a basket into which certain provisions are placed -- based on express legislative action -- and does not create a new relationship status in family law, then, I think that would fly alright.

However, the label "civil union" is already claimed by the Vermont-style enactment of SSM in that state -- which attaches SSM to the hip of marital status. As such it could get around the state and federal DOMA and even FMAs. That would mean SSM under the label "civil union".

Nebraska and Hawaii passed legislative measures that compiled together a number of key reforms in making access to certain protections more easy or affordable for non-marriagable combinations (not just sexual partners of the same sex).

The first goal is to conserve the man-woman criterion and to strengthen marriage as a social institution. Alternatives for the non-marriagable among us, well, that is secondary to society but it is also of primary importance to those affected directly. The two coincide with reciprocal benefits, whereas the two collide with "civil union" proposals.

Your compromise maintains a "back of the bus" and "separate water fountain" approach to marriage that fails to grasp the significance of what gays and lesbians want.

Which is forced public recognition by all that gay unions are just as socially and morally valid as straight ones.

Justin:
The problem that I had with your proposal was what seemed to be a strong simularity to the "civil unions" of Vermont, which arguably are marriage 'lite'. Probably I unconsciously assumed that you were aware of this, and saw nothing wrong with it. I apologize for my anger and angry words.

On further reflection, I can see that you are trying to avoid that. Unhappily, even if such a proposal were to succeed, it seems to me that over a decade or less in many states additions and amendments would drive any arrangements towards Vermont-style marriage lite. I have some modest experience in watching legislation and working to support/oppose it (nothing to do with SSM), and it is clear to me that once a law is on the books, modifying it incrementally, year by year, is much easier than getting it passed in the first place. The only people who pay attention to small changes in some law tend to be activists on both sides of whatever issue is involved, and a handful of legislators. It takes a lot to get the general populace engaged.

For this reason, it seemed and seems to me that such proposals are doomed to merely be a transition to SSM, or something identical to SSM with a different name.

Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any way to craft a civil union that avoids the abuses suggested by others in this thread; what's to stop two college roommates from getting a civil union for 3 years then calling it quits?

I'm quite aware of the ongoing propaganda campaign in support of SSM. However, I don't see how anything less than full SSM will satisfy those in the "infotainment" industry. Res Ipsa has already suggested one means of attacking any compromise, invoking Jim Crow; do you really doubt that this will be done?

If/when the Kennedy Court imposes SSM by judcial fiat, and thus the FMA campaign really gets rolling, those who support it in public will be smeared in amazing ways; that won't be conducive to compromise, and that's no surprise, as we've seen here and elsewhere there's no interest on the pro-SSM side in compromise, only in unconditional SSM.

Canada:
The recent announcement from Canada means that country now will become the newest test case on the issue. Homosexuals in Canada will now have the right to marry nationwide; it will be interesting to see what percentage take advantage of it. If the trend in Sweden, Netherlands and selected Canadian provinces holds, few will do so. Then it will be interesting to see how the SSM supporters attempt to spin that fact.

It is true that heterosexuals in the Netherlands and Sweden are also marrying at lower rates than they used to, but I fail to see the direct relevence to SSM, since we have been assured repeatedly that the desire for marriage in the homosexual community is huge. Indeed, citing the lower marriage rates in those countries seems a poor idea for SSM supporters, as there appears to be a correlation between the legalization of SSM and an acceleration in the decline of marriage rates (Kurtz has shown this by citing scholarly studies from Netherlands).

Reading "Queer theory":
I read the "Queer theory" people for the same reason that during the Cold War I made a point to read Lenin, Trotsky and other Communist theorists; to see what the avant garde view as the ultimate goal. The pro-Communist people I knew years ago certainly weren't Stalinists nor did they consciously ape Lenin; many were quite ignorant of the foundations of the Leftist slogans they mouthed. But the fact remained that if their slogans were to mean anything, they meant working for a dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition to a classless society...and thus knowing Soviet history was directly relevent to being able to debate or contest them.

Most homosexuals, as Res Ipsa stated, probably don't know much about "Queer theory", just as most leftists in the 1980's knew little of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. But does that matter? The "Queer theory" thinkers have a vision of how they want to remake all of humankind, just as the Leninists did, and their words, their phrases, their concepts have influence within the homosexual community whether any of us like it or not. Those ideas have consequences; the "kooky idea" of 20 years ago is now the major social issue of today. Is it unreasonable to see what "kooky ideas" are out there today? I do not think so. Therefore reading "Queer theory" is quite relevent. I admit to not taking orders on what to read from strangers with much good grace...I'm working on that.

Reading J. Rauch:
Now as to Jonathan Rauch. I have not read all of his book yet, but the parts I have read include some handwaving. Specifically, his central thesis remains unproven; he assumes it to be true, but never shows how or why it is or should be true. Rauch's thesis as I understand it rests on the notion that SSM will somehow "strengthen marriage for all", yet the tentative results from Europe suggest exactly the opposite. As noted above, Canada now puts this to the test. We should be able to see in 5 years or less (possibly even in 3) if Rauch's thesis holds up or not. By waiting to see the short term effects of SSM on Sweden, Netherlands, Canada and now Spain, we gain knowledge. Perhaps we gain enough knowledge to clearly see the effects of SSM upon societies?

One reason this all matters:
Because marriage and the formation of family is fundamental to Western civilization, the birth rate also matters. In my experience, heterosexuals who are "just living together" tend to have a lower birth rate than those that are married. I have no studies to support this, merely personal observation. But if it is generally true, then the lower the marriage rate, the lower the birth rate. I think that Canada currently has a nationwide birth rate of 1.5 to 1.7 (births per mother during her life), well below the Zero Population Growth (ZPG) level. Will that rise, level off, or fall in the wake of SSM? I expect it to continue to decline. All of Europe is in the same boat for the most part, including the eastern zone. If SSM is followed by a further decline in birth rate, that correlation is of significance, although one must always be careful not to confuse correlation with causation.

Some years ago I was struck by the fact that societies in history where homosexuality came to be widespread generally were in decline to some extent. It was as if the widespread acceptance of homosexuality was a kind of 'aging marker', like grey hair in humans. I confess that I have not done the research into the issue to really shore up that perception, but there is the modern correlation to deal with; those countries that accept homosexuality to the greatest extent in the modern world also tend to be those where the birth rate is well below ZPG, and thus they are in the process of population decline. The immigrants to those societies are less accepting of homosexuality, and also have higher birth rates. If such a trend continues for 3 generations, huge changes will be wrought in those countries. Now I am wondering not only if widespread acceptance of homosexuality is an "aging marker", but also if it isn't in some way a driver of "societal aging".

Or, as someone put it the other day in regard to the Spanish announcement legalizing SSM, "The gays better enjoy that now, because future lawgivers will be repealing it under Sharia law."

NotDhimmi: We should be able to see in 5 years or less (possibly even in 3) if Rauch's thesis holds up or not.

No. I urge all, both pro and anti-SSM (but I'm particularly addressing the latter) not to fall into the trap of thinking it's only going to take three to five years for us to find out the effects of it. The full effects of something like this won't be really apparent until the first generation to completely grow up under it reaches maturity.

I think too many social analysts make the mistake of assuming that the cultural effects of legal changes should take place in too short time. They fail to appreciate the factor of the continuance of the old cultural assumptions, which don't disappear anywhere near as quickly as the law changes.

The death penalty is another such example. Many assume that the question of deterrence can be answered only a few years after the death penalty is enacted (or outlawed).

But as Steven Goldberg notes in his book "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much Of What You Believe Is False" (page 35):

The death penalty deters--if it does deter--not because the potential murderer weighs the potential murder against the penalty and decides that life imprisonment would be a cheap price to pay but execution is too high a price. He is deterred by the death penalty--if he is deterred by the death penalty--because he has perceived, from childhood on, that murder is the most serious of social offenses. He has accepted this assessment of the seriousness of murder and has internalized it because (among other reasons) his society has emphasized the importance of this value by penalizing it with a penalty stronger than that which it imposes for any other crime. The death penalty deters--if it does deter--primarily from deterring today's child from becoming tomorrow's murderer; it deters--if it does deter--by engendering in today's child a resistance to murder that prevents him from ever seriously considering murder in the behavioral calculations he makes as an adult....It is worth noting that if the death penalty does deter in the manner described here, then we would not (necessarily) expect the abolition of capital punishment to engender an immediate increase in the murder rate. The increase would not be expected to begin until the new generation (those socialized in the absence of the death penalty) reached adolescence.

Note that Goldberg is not arguing that the death penalty does or does not deter; he is arguing that if it does, this is most likely how it does. And I do not know what his thoughts are on SSM, though I'd be very interested in finding out.

Anyway, I would expect that, similarly, whatever cultural effects SSM has would also not be expected to be fully apparent until the first generation socialized in the idea that marriage is between any two "persons" reaches adolescence, or, in this case, until they reach the age of marriage and raise children themselves.

Expecting the result to be apparent any sooner than this will lead to many making premature conclusions. As with the Netherlands, in five years there will be a lot of debate about the effects, with the general consensus being that nothing has been proven, and that at the very least, "the sky has not fallen". Unfortunately I feel that this will cause many countries and states to think that there is no problem, and the dominoes will fall rapidly. Then years after most of the developed nations have legalized SSM, the negative effects will become apparent, and we will all discover why the idea of androgynizing marriage, which is so easy to conceive, paradoxically never took hold in any culture that we are aware of.

R.K. makes some good points. However, I fully do expect to be able to see some of the effects of SSM in 3 to 5 years. When I wrote 'we will know' above, I was unconsciously thinking of critics/opponents of SSM who are paying close attention to social trends. Ordinary people, who have lives and just want the issue to go away somehow won't be looking for such things, and therefore won't see them unless the mass media sources bring it to their attention. We can guess how likely that is to happen.

As noted previously, the studies cited by Kurtz at NRO are European, and indicate a steepening of the downward slope in marriages at least in Netherlands (also Sweden IIRC). Social scientists often have to work with correlations for some time before they are able to find any causal link, however this appears to be the first result of SSM. I can even speculate on a mechanism, but that is for another time.

The Great Society welfare changes were enacted in 1965 for the most part. By 1971 the effects of those policies on poor people were visible. Because a higher percentage of black people were poor, the effects of the policies on the black population were noticably greater; Daniel P. Monyhan observed, analyzed and presented results in 1971. He was ignored, then insulted and vituperated for his trouble by the entire liberal establishment. Maybe some actually looked at his data and conclusions, but they must have been few.

The story of unilateral divorce is more complex, because the changes were state-by-state rather than in one big Federal swoop. Still, there were people in the early to mid 1970's who could point to increases in certain crimes by juveniles as evidence that wholesale divorce wasn't making for better families. I wager they were largely ignored.

It took, what, 20+ years for the "opinon leaders" to admit that the 1960's welfare state was bad for poor people in the long run, bad for society as well? Some haven't admitted it yet, too. Unilateral divorce is now 25 to 35 years old at a guess, and where are we?

That's what I fear will happen with SSM; early effects will be obvious to careful observers, but the supporters of SSM will simply refuse to look at the evidence, will "attack the messenger" rather than deal with the reality, etc. So in a sense, R.K.'s point is correct: for most people, effects of SSM won't be 'visible' for years, even decades. But this likely will be due to willful blindness on the part of societal elites, not a shortage of facts.

Good points, NotDhimmi, and I pretty much agree. The trap I encourage us all to avoid is to make any kind of short-term prediction of severe, clear and visible effects in a mere five years. Almost certainly, those in favor of SSM will use such a prediction against us if the effects are not as severe, clear, and visible (and not as uncontroversially related to SSM) as we had claimed they would be, and they will take advantage of this to claim that our concerns were unwarranted and press for other countries and states to enact SSM as well. If this happens I fear that by the time a generation grows up under SSM, and the damage becomes obvious, there will be no holdouts left that are not affected by it themselves due to the permeation of the cultural effect across borders.

R.K. warned:
The trap I encourage us all to avoid is to make any kind of short-term prediction of severe, clear and visible effects in a mere five years. Almost certainly, those in favor of SSM will use such a prediction against us if the effects are not as severe, clear, and visible (and not as uncontroversially related to SSM) as we had claimed they would be, and they will take advantage of this to claim that our concerns were unwarranted and press for other countries and states to enact SSM as well.

An excellent and most sobering point to bear in mind. Thanks for making that very clear.