Societal vs. Individual

Eve clarifies that her concern with my arguments against polygamy and incest were not a matter of abstraction, but rather a concern that I was assuming a societal interest in marriage which is at the heart of the SSM debate.  She writes:

I would say, rather, that his reasons, however compelling to people already driven by "macro" social concerns and questions of societal benefit, assume that marriage is about social capital and societal benefit rather than being about the adult individuals who make up the union. And this societal vs. individual divide is one of the biggest factors in the SSM debate! So it is not so much "abstract vs. concrete" but a deeper conflict of visions--what, or whom, is civil marriage about? The people who want their union to be considered a marriage, or the citizenry at large, and most particularly the children?

I believe civil marriage is about society at large, the married couple, and the children of that couple.  I don't think it's a case of who am I choosing in this conflict.  I don't see the conflict in the case of SSM.  I think marriage is good for society regardless of the sex of the individuals in the marriage.  I also think it's good for the couple and especially good for their children.   I believe Jonathan Rauch will continue to make this argument in his forthcoming book Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.  The description from the publisher reads:

Two people meet and fall in love. They get married, they become upstanding members of their community, they care for each other when one falls ill, they grow old together. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing, says Jonathan Rauch, and that's the point. If the two people are of the same sex, why should this chain of events be any less desirable? Marriage is more than a bond between individuals; it also links them to the community at large. Excluding some people from the prospect of marriage not only is harmful to them, but is also corrosive of the institution itself. The controversy over gay marriage has reached a critical point in American political life as liberals and conservatives have begun to mobilize around this issue, pro and con. But no one has come forward with a compelling, comprehensive, and readable case for gay marriage-until now. Jonathan Rauch, one of our most original and incisive social commentators, has written a clear and honest manifesto explaining why gay marriage is important-even crucial-to the health of marriage in America today. Rauch grounds his argument in commonsense, mainstream values and confronting the social conservatives on their own turf. Gay marriage, he shows, is a "win-win-win" for strengthening the bonds that tie us together and for remaining true to our national heritage of fairness and humaneness toward all.

That being said, I think there is a mistaken impression the Massachusetts SJC somehow ignored the arguments about the societal effects.  They did not.  They merely observed that the arguments as presented did not make sense.  The state argued that there would be some harm from nonprocreating couples marrying.  The court noted that if the state truly believed this, it was awfully strange that no nonprocreating opposite-sex couple was ever barred from marriage on that account.  It was even stranger that the laws made it easier for a woman on her deathbed to marry.  To accept the state's argument the court would have had to believe that the state really didn't want any nonprocreating couples to marry, but just hadn't figured out how to do anything about the problem except for the case of same-sex couples.  It would have also had to believe that the state made it easier for a person on her deathbed to marry in the hopes that she would conceive before dying.  I can't blame the court for not finding this argument credible.  Likewise the state had argued that it was trying to establish the "optimal" setting for raising a child.  The court was baffled by what children the state was possibly helping by its prohibition.  It certainly wasn't the children of the same-sex couples who were being denied the legal protections and security stemming from their parents' marriage.  It was rather hard to see how denying this one sizeable group of children these protections did anything to benefit the children of opposite-sex couples either. 

This idea is related to Eve's response to Ampersand where she contends that she's asking everybody to sacrifice.  It seems she's asking heterosexual couples to marry and to take care of their children and spouses.  I can understand that.  She's asking people to take responsibility for their actions.  I'm all for that.  It seems to me, though, that we should be asking the same of same-sex couples.  Same-sex couples are trying to protect their families and volunteering to take on addition legal responsibilities and obligations in the interest of their families.  Why is that wrong?  What would Eve have them do instead?

Comments

[divorce attorney florida]

The article made me realized the correct things i should do on my ongoing case now.