July 07, 2003

Conserving Marriage

A question comes about often when discussing conservatism: "What do conservatives want to conserve?" Since most conservatives don't back the socialist, anti-tech agenda of environmentalists, critics say conservatives don't want to conserve our natural resources. Most conservatives believe adhering to traditional morality is best for a well-functioning society. Along that line, I'll quote from this Eve Tushnet post:

Marriage has developed over time (ooh, Hayek would like this!) to fulfill several specific needs that hold society together: couples' need for a promise of fidelity; children's need for a father and for stability and security; young people's need for a tie to the next and the previous generations; young people's need for a transition to adult womanhood and manhood; men's (women's too, but especially men's) need for a channel for sexual desire that is fruitful, not destructive.

A long time ago--probably back when TAM was on Angelfire--I linked to an essay by David Boaz that called for the government to get out of the marriage business. It parallels Michael Kinsley's column on same-sex marriage. Privatizing marriage would certainly take the issue of gay marriage off the table (but we'd have to endure months of Andrew Sullivan posts on how his wedding plans were going). It may not be as disasterous as Eve would think. Since marriage is an institution that has grown deep roots in our culture, privatizing marriage wouldn't immediately destroy it. I do think there would be many people in the short-term who would forge some pretty bizarre and radical unions (how about three women, two men, and a 21-year-old son of one of the men?). The results of such a free-for-all would victimize many--especially young children.

I'm currently reading Modern Sex and what caught my eye and tugged at my heart is the tremendous amount of cynicism people have toward love, sex, and relationships. If you haven't read the book or read any of the essays when they were originally published in City Journal then just watch an episode of Sex and the City. Today, we can have consentual sex with whomever we want. The Sexual Liberation movement reached it goal, but we're not any happier. We're learning the hard way that sex does not equal love nor does it ensure happiness.

Eve continues:

As we strip marriage of its societal honor, its special status, and the various features that helped it fulfill its complex functions (and I really think its restriction to opposite-sex couples is one of these features), we make it much, much harder for love to make the world go 'round. We make it much harder to link eros and responsibility. We make it much harder for adults' desires and children's interests to line up--thus forcing unnecessary tragic choices between adults and their own children. We also, I note for the libertarians in my readership, weaken the societal infrastructure that makes limited government possible.

The big question is would privatized marriage dramatically change society for the worse. No body knows that answer. Not the gay marriage advocates, not the Religious Right, not the social libertines. Because of this, the conservative response is to back the status quo instead of jumping head-first into the cultural unknown.

"Abolish Marriage"