THE DIVORCE THING: Jonathan responds:

Friends, I just read Maggie's August 13 NRO comment. In her refutation of Andrew Sullivan, Maggie winds up inadvertently (?) making his point, which is that many conservative opponents of same-sex marriage apply a double standard and treat the welfare of gay people with a cavalierness that they wouldn't dream of applying to heterosexuals. Or have I missed something?

Maggie says this: "Will same-sex marriage strengthen or weaken marriage as a social institution? If the answer is that it will weaken marriage at all, we should not do it."

And later: "By what moral calculus do they [same-sex marriage advocates] decide the interests of adults with statistically unusual sexual tastes is the most important thing? To me it is a striking example of a revival of Seventies/'Me-Decade' adult narcissism."

I don't insist that heterosexuals regard gay welfare as the "most important thing." But I do feel justified in insisting that they take gay welfare seriously. Maggie's first comment above, I think, suggests she is engaging in single-entry bookkeeping. any benefit to children outweighs every benefit to homosexuals.

No responsible SSM advocate says that the welfare of children is unimportant. Or that the welfare of heterosexuals is unimportant. Or even that homosexual welfare is "the most important thing." We just say that the welfare of homosexuals counts too. We insist that gay lives and loves be weighed in the balance. And we insist that being told we can never marry anyone, ever--a whole life, a whole community, an endless future without the personal and social and civic benefits of marriage--is an exceptionally bleak requirement, one that is cruel unless absolutely necessary.

Andrew S. says of Sen. Santorum: "He hasn't thought for a second about the good of homosexual citizens." Maggie, please say in your case it ain't so. Do you really believe that gay people's desire for the blessing and burdens of marriage is mere "narcissism"? Would you dream of saying such a thing about, say, sterile heterosexuals who wanted to marry?

I'll also disagree with the notion that Andrew is just changing the subject with his suggestion that, if Maggie et al. really care so much about preserving marriage, they'd ban divorce. Or at least, he might have said, ban divorce where minor children are present.

Andrew is indeed changing the subject, but he's doing it to point out an inconsistency. By rights, the logic of Maggie's statement works both ways. If anything that weakens marriage at all should not be done, then surely anything that strengthens marriage at all should be done--or at a bare minimum should be seriously considered. So why not pass laws saying that married couples can't have a divorce until their kids are 18? To dismiss such ideas out of hand as impolitic or inconvenient or subject-changing seems to me a pretty good example of pandering to "Seventies/'Me-Decade' adult narcissism." It's more single-entry bookkeeping, in any event.

I take Maggie's point that same-sex marriage is the only big change now on the table. I'm sure that if someone came along and proposed a public subsidy for adultery she'd strenuously oppose that, too. Maggie was out in front on marriage a long time ago, and blessings upon her. But Andrew and I aren't asking you to agree with us about the practical effects of same-sex marriage, Maggie. We're asking you and your colleagues to take gay lives and welfare seriously. Why should that be so hard?

posted by maggie at 3:01 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home