February 26, 2004

More on My Marriage Compromise

Kevin (of Reductio Ad Absurdum fame) asks how my compromise would deal with polygamy. It would deal with it by letting states define civil unions as only being between two people, but I know that with legal same sex marriages as a precedent, "anything goes" would eventually become the legal norm. That means that while individual religious institutions could decide what is marriage, the state would probably have to consider any grouping of people to constitute a civil union. With the end result of anything being a union, nothing is. With respect to the government, the institution of marriage is doomed. Culturally it may survive, but as a institution with legal privileges, it will not exist. Will that mean the end of American family as we know it? I don't know. What I can be sure of is there will be unintended consequences.

Proponents of SSM can't and won't respond to the polygamy question. Here's a portion from Tuesday's airing of Crossfire where Tucker Carlson asks Cheryl Jacques, president and executive director of the Human Rights Campaign about polygamy:

CARLSON: I beg your pardon. I want to -- I want to ask you a question. And I want you to answer it. No one ever answers this question. And perhaps you will.

The standards that the Massachusetts Supreme Court set was intimacy. People are intimate, share intimacy, they deserve to be married. Why draw the line at two people, say? Why shouldn't a group of three men, for instance, by that standard, be able to be married? It's an honest question. I'd like an honest answer, please.

JACQUES: Here's an honest answer. Tucker, I'm raising two sons. I want them to be in love with a committed partner. I want them to have a family. I want grandchildren. I want them to take care of each other. I want them to share each other's health insurance. I want, when one of them dies, the other one to be able to receive Social Security survivor benefits, because they'll pay into it, as I do.

CARLSON: OK, but you haven't answered the question yet.

JACQUES: I just answered it.

CARLSON: No, no, why not three?

JACQUES: I want two committed parents, like every family.

CARLSON: But why deny the right of free people

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because I don't approve of that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Why don't you approve of it?

BEGALA: Who is asking for it?

HAYWORTH: Well, I'll tell you who is asking for it.

JACQUES: The American Pediatrics Association, all the leading groups say two committed parents.

CARLSON: But give me a reason. I don't understand.

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: That's what makes for a healthy family and a loving family and that's what I want. HAYWORTH: Paul asked, who is asking for this? And the sad fact is, right now, polygamists are petitioning the courts in Utah.

JACQUES: That's not what this is about.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYWORTH: No, it's precisely what this is about.

CARLSON: Why isn't that what it is about?

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because that's a different show with different advocates. This is about two loving, committed people.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope our culture can rise above the relativism and radical egalitarianism to set a standard to preserve and extend itself.

Now, it's possible that companies and other institutions could define for themselves what a married couple is for insurance and other contractual purposes. Some companies would extend marriage/civil union benefits to only one partner, while other companies would recognize more unique intimate relationships. But with our legitous society and its moral relativism, I don't think courts would put up with such forms of private discrimination. Pro-SSM libertarians should be willing to extend their "live-and-let-live" moral philosophy to the beliefs and actions to those not willing to accept marriage defined as something other than man and woman.

Let's be clear to those who support same-sex marriage: it's a radical alteration to American society. My gut instinct (as well as that of a majority of Americans) is that SSM shouldn't be legal. But it's just that, a gut instinct. The problem is making a coherant case in light of the past century where many instances of sexual and racial discrimination were conquered. Despite Andrew Sullivan's passionate arguments, a "conservative" case for same-sex marriage is no where close to being so. My compromise tries to find a solution, but even I didn't think it would be a good one.

UPDATE: Cam Edwards has a good post on the subject and even better comments.