CATHY YOUNG RESPONDS TO MAGGIE'S VOLOHKBLOGGING

...Take away procreation as a crucial element of marriage, and the rationale for special government sanction for marriage vanishes (and perhaps the rationale for cultural support, as well); it becomes just another private relationship in which society has no special interest. The end result, Gallagher predicts, will be "the de-institutionalization of marriage altogether." And like it or not, she has a point. Unless children are an issue, why should the government take an interest in whether we settle down with a steady partner in a sexual relationship? Yes, there is evidence that married people are happier and healthier than singles, but that doesn't necessarily justify government involvement; there is also plenty of evidence that people who have a network of close friends are happier and healthier than loners, but we don't have special legally mandated benefits for friendships.

I think Gallagher is probably wrong about the "de-institutionalization of marriage," if by that she means that the marital "benefit package" will be abolished. Taking away benefits people already have is never a popular move (which is one reason the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is likely to stick). It is more likely that some of the benefits now associated with marriage will be extended to other close relationships. ...

If some of the benefits of marriage are extended to non-marital relationships, will it harm marriage? Probably not in any practical sense (how many people weigh their spouse's insurance policy as a factor in deciding to marry?), but marriage would lose its special status and hence, probably, some of its prestige as well.

A radical decoupling of marriage and procreation would bring about other cultural changes -- or rather, accelerate them, since they have been underway for some time. Straight couples would probably face less of an expectation that, once married, they will have children as a matter of course. ...

...Rauch would no doubt say -- and I think it's a strong argument -- that this young man's desire to raise children in a marriage even though he didn't biologically need a spouse for the purpose is actually a powerful endorsement of marriage as an institution. But one can see another side to this as well. Once you take away the ideal of the procreative couple, is there any reason to believe that the family unit best suited for raising a child is a pair whose union is based on romantic love? Sure, two caregivers are better than one, but why shouldn't the other caregiver be a relative or even a friend? ...

One more point to ponder: if the primary purpose of marriage is the romantic happiness and satisfaction of adults, then staying together for the sake of the children even if romantic passion and intimacy have one out of the marriage -- an ideal many people who are neither reactionary nor bigoted would like to reclaim -- becomes a far less tenable proposition.

The argument that procreation is a fundamental element of marriage, however, has a serious weakness: opposite-sex couples in which one partner is infertile, or in which the woman is past childbearing age, are permitted to marry. ...

Another important counterargument to Gallagher's reasoning is that the trends she deplores -- the shift toward a view of marriage centered around romantic love rather than procreation, divorce, single mtoherhood, the weakening of traditional sex roles in marriage and of social pressures to marry and have children -- are already here. So is de facto gay marriage (some churches and synagogues have been marrying same-sex couples for years). Preventing state recognition of same-sex marriage is not going to reverse those trends. But I think that for Gallagher and many other social conservatives, the legalization of same-sex marriage amounts to an official death certificate for traditional sexual arrangements and an affirmation that the forces of modernity have won.

more
posted by Eve at 8:14 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home