Single Entry (Panem et Circenses)

TNR ^ | Post date 05.24.04 | by Gregg Easterbrook

[.cnI redruM]

Yours truly, married with three kids, and a churchgoer, supports the recognition of gay marriage, for somewhat quirky reasons that don't matter to this article. (I spell out my quirky reasons here, contending there is a religious argument for same-gender unions.) American society is now inalterably on track to broad if not universal acceptance of gay marriage and, when the razzle is over, future generations will wonder why the whole matter was controversial in the first place. I don't think same-gender union will usher in the Age of Aquarius: Married homosexuals will bicker, become unhappy, and divorce at about the same rate that traditional couples encounter these problems. Overall, though, gays and lesbians who wed should be glad they did, since sociological research finds powerful evidence that most people benefit from marriage. This book by University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite and writer Maggie Gallagher shows that, as a group, the wedded are happier, healthier, live longer, achieve a higher standard of living, and even enjoy more and higher-quality sex than singles. (No, I don't know how researchers measure quality of sex, but clearly it is important to measure!) Presumably married homosexuals as a group will resemble married heterosexuals as a group: most of them better off, some rendered miserable by their vows.

But as today's riotous controversy regarding complaints of social prejudice against same-gender union sorts itself out, prepare yourself for the next big conundrum: Singles will complain that society is prejudiced against them. There are 59 million people 16 years of age or older in the United States who have never married, and another 41 million who are separated, divorced, or widowed. Defenders of traditional marriage say that it is a 3,000-year-old institution that has withstood tremendous trial and proven itself the best organizing basis for communities and for raising children. But if marriage loses its classical definition of a union between one man and one woman, acquiring a new definition of "benefits granted to any two people who make a legal commitment to each other"--since last Monday this has basically been the definition of marriage in Massachusetts--singles may have reason to be ticked off. Why shouldn't they get the benefits, too?

Much of the recent gay-marriage debate has been conducted on two grounds. First, gays and lesbians wish to be acknowledged as ordinary people who can enter into any ordinary social position, whether that means assuming a role as a teacher or a clergy member or taking a vow to serve the country in the military or honoring the bonds of matrimony. On this first point the same-sex union argument is strong. Gays and lesbians are that way because that's the way God made them. The majority of the gay men and lesbians I've known have struck me as amazingly normal, considering the barriers and extra anxieties they deal with, and considering that coming to terms with sexuality is traumatic even if you're straight, good looking, and bathed in the approval of the world. Homosexuals are the way God made them, and the ones who behave responsibly--passing the same test heterosexuals must pass--deserve the embrace of society.

The second recent grounds on which same-sex union has been argued is that defining marriage as a state entered into by one man and one woman denies privileges and benefits to gays and lesbians. Married people have an easier time getting credit and a much easier time adopting children, get each other's health-care benefits and Social Security survivor benefits, can inherit property from each other without tax, and enjoy other advantages over those living together outside marriage. Denial of these advantages to same-gender couples who want to marry is the crux of a civil-rights-like complaint regarding gay union. Denial was the essence of the Massachusetts court decision that put the current gay-marriage debate into fifth gear. The Massachusetts judges ruled that granting benefits only to one-man-one-woman unions constituted lack of equal treatment under the law.

On this second grounds for same-gender union, I'm not so sure. Jonathan Rauch contends persuasively in his extraordinary new book Gay Marriage that the best argument for same-gender union is that it will improve life for everyone--for the traditional majority as well as for gays and lesbians. Same-gender unions, Rauch reasons, will represent a vote of confidence for the institution of marriage, currently beset by divorce; will stabilize communities, by placing gays and lesbians into relationships that are socially acceptable; will help communities, by allowing gays and lesbians to assume their share of community labors at the church, the PTA, and so on; will replace a source of discord with a source of comity; will remove a great fear of huge numbers of parents, that they will have a gay child who must live in prejudice. Once communities adjust to gay union, the traditional majority will feel happier--and this, Rauch thinks, is the clincher argument.

It's certainly a better argument than, "We demand benefits!" If significant numbers of gays and lesbians begin to wed, the 100 million single people may become more dismayed that still more people wearing rings get special deals while they do not. Equally important, for every gay or lesbian pair who weds, winning benefits, a couple of single people must be taxed more to fund these benefits. Benefits can't just be demanded; someone must provide them. Marriage benefits for gays and lesbians will not come from the pockets of those in traditional one-man-one-woman unions. The benefits will come from the pockets of the single.

You chortle now, but as same-gender unions gain acceptance, prejudice against the single may become the final frontier. Marriage definitely isn't for everyone; some people were made by God to be single, and why should society punish them for that? Millions of people wish to marry but cannot find suitable partners; why should society punish them for that? The single makes substantial contributions to society, including often assisting in the all-important raising of children. Many single people form long-term or even life-long bonds to each other based not on eros but Platonic friendship; why shouldn't such people be able to pool their credit, inherit each other's property without taxation, and so on?

A utilitarian might care more about the denial of privileges to the unmarried, than to gays who wish to wed, simply because the numbers in the former category are so much larger. At any rate, complaints from the single seem the next logical progression of this debate, and complaints from the single are going to be hard to rebut.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>>>At any rate, complaints from the single seem the next logical progression of this debate, and complaints from the single are going to be hard to rebut.

When everybody has benefits and noone pays for them, guess what? I think we will eventually have to abolish all legal benefits accorded to married couples regardless of the type of marraige. it may be the only way to stop a Hun-like raid on our national and state treasuries...

[Red Badger]

No, it will usher in "The Age of Aqueerious".........

[Alberta's Child]

This article offers some very poor reasons to support the implementation of "gay marriage" in any form. In fact, I am becoming more convinced by the day that the ultimate result of all this crap will be an end to any government recognition of "marriage" in any form.

[Argus]

defining marriage as a state entered into by one man and one woman denies privileges and benefits to gays and lesbians

No it does not. A gay guy can marry a lesbian and they can both draw all the privileges and benefits they want.

If, on the other hand, the argument is about LOVE, then what do privileges and benefits have to do with it? When I married my wife, the last thing on my mind was all the alleged privileges and benefits involved.

That said, I think the homogamy train has left the station. It's a done deal.

[weegee]

In fact, I am becoming more convinced by the day that the ultimate result of all this crap will be an end to any government recognition of "marriage" in any form.

It's what the anarchist-socialists have been pushing for. Have to tear down America and its institutions in order to tear down the government.

[.cnI redruM]

That is basically what will happen. This, to me, is why I think gay marriage was such a big left wing issue...

[weegee]

REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--

STAN: Or woman.

REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.

STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

STAN: I want to be one.

REG: What?

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry. REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

The Life of Brian

[Martin Tell]

The Weekly Standard had an excellent article a few months ago arguing that the abolition of marriage is in fact what the proponents of "gay marriage" are really after. The authors followed law and policy journals on the subject and concluded that the proponents (mostly professors at elite law schools) want marriage abolished and replaced with goverment sponsored and enforced contracts. Group "marriage" and incest would be possible (probably encouraged), traditional families would lose any special position and the role of government in child rearing would be greatly strengthened.

This is one reason I think a constitutional amendment is so important.

[Alberta's Child]

That wouldn't mean, though, that marriage would come to an end. It would simply mean that "marriage," in the eyes of the government, would be no different than any other contract between two, twenty, or 500 people.

The first step in this process will not come from the government -- it will come from decent religious couples who refuse to recognize that the state has any authority to grant a marriage license or even to define what the hell the word "marriage" means.

The government will stop recognizing marriages in any form once polygamy is recognized as a legitimate form of "marriage" -- because it will be utterly impossible to prosecute any kind of organized crime once they find out that the entire Gambino crime family and all of their business associates are "married" and therefore can't be compelled to testify against each other in court. The same goes for cases of corporate fraud, stock fraud, etc.: the first thing I would do as the head of a major corporation is require every member of the board of directors to get "married" to each other.

[weegee]

Married people have an easier time getting credit and a much easier time adopting children, get each other's health-care benefits and Social Security survivor benefits, can inherit property from each other without tax, and enjoy other advantages over those living together outside marriage. Denial of these advantages to same-gender couples who want to marry is the crux of a civil-rights-like complaint regarding gay union.

When childrens' rights are taken into consideration, the left loses a lot of their pet issues.

Abortion goes out the window when you realize that it violates the right to life (as specified in the Constitution). Some in America are even pushing for euthenasia up to one year after birth (for critical care babies). The child does not get to consent to die.

The "same-sex adoption" right cited above also tramples the child's right to be placed in a safe and stable home by those who are are to provide for him or her. Someone with an agenda to push is willing to tell that child that he or she does not need to have one father and one mother. In fact, that child will be raised in an abberant (outside of the norm) household. But the vanity that came with the rights of Baby Boomers puts the adults "feelings" over those of the child.

[tiamat]

Love that movie!

;-)

And that's a GREAT tag-line!

[weegee]

The first step in this process will not come from the government -- it will come from decent religious couples who refuse to recognize that the state has any authority to grant a marriage license or even to define what the hell the word "marriage" means.

Decent religious couples will also abandon the church as it has already been hijacked (at least in some quarters). If a church sancations same sex weddings, actively homosexual ministers, etc. then there is no "redemption" for sinners rather a celebration of sinners. When this happens (and it IS happening today) the church no longer stands for anything.

People lose their faith in organized religion.

Churches gone. Institution of marriage gone. Parents are voluntarily taking their kids out of formal schools.

The anarchist-socialists are doing well at deconstructing our institutions by pushing the liberal agenda.

[.cnI redruM]

Now that's funny. The Gambino's should also all become priests of their own religion and take one another's confessions when that ploy doesn't work. I shouldn't laugh. I'm sure people will begin using these loopholes on a regular basis.

[Alberta's Child]

It will all reach the height of idiocy when Social Security and pension funds are driven to bankruptcy by eldery retirees marrying their own great-grandchildren -- thereby providing these kids with an entire lifetime of survivor's benefits.

[G.Mason]

"It's what the anarchist-socialists have been pushing for. Have to tear down America and its institutions in order to tear down the government."

You are 100% correct-a-mundo!

Add any subversive, self oriented group to those "socialists", and you have the answer.

Many, even here on FR, consider Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Pelosi, Daschel, Rangle, etal, merely liberal thinkers, and tinkerers.

They are, my friends, every much the enemy as any terrorist. They, and their ilk, intend to enslave the populace of America.

By last count, they are 50% home.

[sheik yerbouty]

Maybe they'll redo "Rear Window"(barf..)