MARRIAGE AND PROCREATION: Jonathan Rauch replies to Maggie Gallagher

Let me get back to the main question buried in the middle there, later (i.e. Can marriage be the social institution which addresses the "problem" of procreation if we do SSM?)

If you agree that is the main question between us.

Yes. That is the main question between us, and it's stated well.

My view is that the "problem" of procreation is better handled with SSM than without. It does no good at all to try to set aside marriage as a special club for procreators, because (1) no society has ever done that, (2) doing it inconsistently (i.e., excluding only gay couples on grounds of infertility) is just confusing and unfair, and (3) even doing it consistently would not encourage single moms to marry--more likely the opposite. I think the cultural effect of excluding some couples--especially when those couples have kids--from marriage is just to make marriage less of a universal norm and more of a "lifestyle choice." A better path is to use many avenues to restore the preference for marriage over nonmarriage and reinforce the cultural and legal centrality of marriage. I regard SSM as one of those avenues.

Here is another way, perhaps, to come at the same thing.

Earlier Maggie asked: "Gay marriage advocates can say either a) marriage used to be about this [procreation], but is no longer; or b) since we allow some couples who don't procreate to marry, we can allow same-sex couples to do so without interfering with marriage's role in managing procreation. The argument goes in different directions, depending on whether SSM advocates are asserting a or b. Which is it?"

I can't speak for other advocates, but I think the correct answer is (b) inasmuch as marriage never has been reserved for procreative couples. Marriage has never used exclusivity as an incentive to cope with procreativity (no one said, "You'd better procreate, or else you won't be allowed to marry"). More like the opposite: society used marriage as a threat to cope with procreativity ("You'd better not get pregnant or make someone pregnant, because if you do you'll have to marry"). Marriage has always been about coping with procreation among other things, and in recent years the other things have become more important relative to procreation. That's the sense in which (a) is meaningful.

Back to Andrew S. for a moment. I read him as describing, rather than embracing, the "non-procreative adult companionship" view of marriage. He's a devout Catholic, remember. The point I take him to be making is that if straight folks want to change the culture of marriage from what it is (which is what they have made it), they should start on themselves. When and only when they're ready to make fertility/procreativity a requirement of straight marriage, they can apply that rule to their gay fellow citizens. It's a point about fairness in a liberal society, not about the ultimate purpose of marriage.

posted by Eve at 11:21 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home