Gay Marriage: It’s Not About the Kids
Here we go again. A National Review Online editorial opposes gay marriage on the grounds that it severs the link between marital sex and child-rearing in stable homes. Andrew Sullivan suggests that the implications of this position are cruel and radical:
It reaffirms .. that infertile couples who want to marry in order to adopt children have no place within existing marriage laws, as NR sees them. Such infertile and adoptive “marriages” rest on a decoupling of actual sex and the rearing of children. The same, of course, applies much more extensively to any straight married couple that uses contraception: they too are undermining what National Review believes to be the core reason for civil marriage.
Sullivan’s criticisms are familiar and appropriate: If straight marriage is really about the kids, should not infertile couples be banned from walking down the aisle? And if sex should be tied to marriage, should couples who use contraception forfeit their marriage licenses?
Sullivan’s main point — marital sex and child rearing are not inextricably linked under the law – is a fair one. If our laws did link them so tightly, infertile and contracepting couples would be barred from adopting. But Sullivan hardly demolishes the case for traditional marriage.
For one thing, Sullivan’s argument is far more theoretical than practical. In the overwhelming majority of cases, heterosexual couples at the time of their marriage do not know whether they are fertile or infertile, let alone that they will contracept every single time they have intercourse. If the couple turns out to be infertile, does that fact mean that the state should dissolve their marriage? No, of course it shouldn’t.
As a sidelight, the issue in many cases is not fertility but rather conception. For example, members of my family been unable to bring a child to term and adopted later. Should the government determine whether the couple was in fact infertile or used contraception religiously? Of course not.
For argument’s sake, let’s grant Sullivan his theoretical scenario: a couple knows they cannot conceive and wish to adopt a child. Has he not won his implied argument: gay couples are the legal equivalent of (knowingly) infertile straight couples and couples that use contraception always? Well, Sullivan pokes holes in NRO’s incomplete description of marriage — marriage exists to link marital sex and child rearing.
Yet Sullivan’s main argument, and this is my second point, does not lay a glove on the traditional understanding of marriage: marriage exists not only to link marital intimacy and child rearing, but also to give children a maternal and paternal influence. Have not the last 45 years of social-science research proved beyond a doubt that children are far more likely to succeed when raised in a traditional two-parent home? Explaining the answer is not difficult. Mothers influence children in a certain way; fathers influence children in a certain way. Male and female differences matter. Without one or the other, a child misses learning to love an essential part of human nature.
One counter-objection to my arguments is that gay-marriage advocates don’t want to destroy traditional marriage. They want to extend the benefits of marriage to gays and lesbians. Sullivan, as well as Jonathan Rauch, make a variation on this argument: marriage equality will socialize gays and channel homo-erotic desire into unselfish love. Forget for a moment that many same-sex marriage advocates make an altogether different argument: marriage should be open to everyone, such as polygamous couples. What Sullivan and Rauch’s argument ignores is a fundamental point: Marriage does not exist first and foremost for the happiness of adults. If it did, marriage should be considered nothing more than a contract, like that between a renter and landlord. That is a far cry from treating marriage as a social institution that exists for the producing and/or rearing of children in stable homes. Sullivan, in fact, has acknowledged this point. After the Supreme Court of California issued its ruling in favor of same-sex marriage ruling last May, Sullivan noted, approvingly, that the decision establishes a definition of marriage “in which reproduction and children are not necessary.”
This definition of marriage is altogether new. For example, the post sexual-revolution definition of marriage still acknowledges that reproduction and children are necessary components; it just assumes that children do better in a single-parent household with no conflict than a two-parent household with conflict. Legalizing gay marriage, then, fulfills the logic of what no-fault divorce does in practice: Devaluing society’s goal in producing and raising children in the best way known to humans.
Photo from Rita Crane’s Photography used courtesy of Creative Commons License
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
It seems a little far-fetched to say that one kind of couple raises children better than another. A married heterosexual couple in which a parent is abusive could not possibly be considered better for a child then a mutually caring and supportive homosexual couple.
Also, going by your logic, would it be wrong for two people (gay or straight) who have mutually agreed that they never intend to reproduce or adopt to get married?
Graham,
Your reply does in fact imply that one kind of couple raises children better than another: a “mutually caring and supportive” couple over an abusive one. So not all couples are alike, right?
We can all agree that a heterosexual couple with an abusive parent is bad. But gay marriage is not the solution to abuse. Children of gay couples suffer from a different type of neglect: no influence of a mother or father.
In practice, a couple that pledged never to adopt or produce children would surely break their pledge. Saying you will never have children at the time of one’s marriage and actually never having children are two different things.
However, you raise an interesting point: What about those couples that pledge never to raise kids and don’t? These sorts of couples are the exception to the rule, no? In any event, let me think about your question some more and get back to you.
In response to another comment. See in context »The argument that a child raised by homosexuals inherently suffers from neglect, just because one gender is not around, is fallacious at best. We live in a world rampant with genuinely neglectful parents, regardless of sexuality.
If we’re going to pre-screen potential parents on their likelihood to neglect, will we deny a person who works too much the right to marry?
In response to another comment. See in context »Honestly, I don’t get why this issue needs to be a concern of the church, or Catholic advocates at all. The church won’t sanctify a same-sex union, and will not witness the sacrament of marriage for such. Just as it would not for a entirely non-Catholic couple.
Whatever happens on the civil side, the sacred position remains unchanged. Meaning that if it is not recognized or witnessed by the church, the marriage is not a marriage.
Historically marriage was a means of ensuring progeny, financial security, and political advantage, which was important during ages of scarcity and limited means. But today is not an age of scarcity or limited means, which means that old patterns should be revisited, and brought in line with modern needs.
jamesohearn,
My post mentioned nothing about the concern(s) of the Catholic Church. It was about the concerns of American society.
In response to another comment. See in context »I would also point out that you sneak an elephantine assumption into a mouse-sized keyhole right around the eighth paragraph:
“Have not the last 45 years of social-science research proved beyond a doubt that children are far more likely to succeed when raised in a traditional two-parent home?”
is followed by:
“Explaining the answer is not difficult. Mothers influence children in a certain way; fathers influence children in a certain way. Male and female differences matter. ”
Raising a child requires enormous resources in time and money. Having two people involved goes a long way towards alleviating that burden. Whether those people are male/female, both female or both male is irrelevant. You point to social science supporting a two-parent household, and then to a book cover touting innate gender differences, and continue as if you’ve made the case that parents need to be male and female to be adequate. But one does not suggest the other.
I find the majority of anti gay-marriage columns to be circuitous and hard to follow. The idea that allowing more people to express their love through an institution they deeply respect and want to be a part of it weakens that institution somehow is ludicrous on its face. Hence, the muddied waters.
Joseph,
It is true that social scientists have not studied the effects on children raised in gay married households. But in my humble opinion, we should be extremely reluctant to undertake what amounts to a vast social experiment on the lives of children. We did this 40 years with the divorce revolution. We know how that turned out: our generation is worse off on a whole host of measures (psychological, economic, etc.) than baby boomers.
Now even the smartest gay-marriage advocates say that gay marriage is about separating marriage from kids and reproduction, about adult desire (and by implication, not children’s well-being). I think for gay marriage supporters such as yourself, the onus is on you to prove that gay marriage will be good for kids.
In response to another comment. See in context »Marriage is in many ways a contract. Even those who choose to marry in a religious ceremony must also file paperwork with the state, and if they choose to divorce they must work with the courts to dissolve the marriage. And nowhere does that paperwork state that children are the natural result of marriage.
What’s interesting about “tradition” is that people always stop at the historical tradition they support, ignoring the previous traditions and the ones that have followed. This cherry-picking is most profound in the religious. They cite the Bible as the source of one man-one-woman marriage–usually the fable of Adam and Eve–but ignore the polygamous marriages and extra-marital sex rampant in the Old Testament.
This tells me that the argument isn’t really about tradition, it’s about pushing one’s religious beliefs on others. Nothing about same-sex marriages would force religions to perform the ceremonies. It’s time for the religious to get out out of the affairs of consenting adults.
Gerry,
I agree: Marriage is in many ways a contract. But it is not entirely a contract. It is also a public good, like schools and civic groups. In fact, social scientists say that families are the most important engine for forming social capital. Getting rid of two-parent families is the surest path to poverty, disease, and psychological harm.
In response to another comment. See in context »I wonder then why “marriage defenders” don’t seek to make divorce either more difficult to obtain or have it outlawed completely. Just a guess, but I think most would find that level of personal intrusion unpalatable and would argue that the government should not have the authority to regulate the status of their relationship.
In response to another comment. See in context »The idea that a couple before marriage would not know they are infertile is interesting. It implies the ability to have children is not a requirement to be married. Just that the couple want to be married and maybe they plan to have children.
The whole idea that infertile couples could use medical processes to fix the problem or work around it is also a rather new concept. Much newer than marriage. Even the definition of marriage has varied over time but lets not go there.
So, marriage is not about the children. It is something that happens before children in many cases. The lack of ability to have children is independent of the right to be married.
How does a gay couple getting married before knowing if they could have children through what ever means available different from a non-gay couple getting married with the same blind assumptions?
John Corey,
I agree with some of your premise. “[M]arital sex and child rearing,” I wrote, “are not inextricably linked.” But then you leap to the conclusion that under the law, marriage is not linked at all to children.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not going to lie, when I first started reading your article I had a very tough time trying to figure out exactly what you were trying to say. In fact, after reading your arguments I’m still confused. Based on your arguments that child-rearing should require a two-parent household, you can expand that to say a family unfortunate enough to have a parental death is no longer fit to support children. Does this really make sense? No, it doesn’t. The best environment to raise a child in is in one of love and support, regardless of the gender, beliefs, or sexual orientation of the parent or parents.
In addition, you claim that marriage is not a contract, when in essence it is. Marriage should be based on the happiness of two adults, not necessarily for the rearing of children. I thought we had come a far way from the days of organized marriages or environments in which the female’s sole duty is to have children. But your argument makes it seem as though this is so. A marriage really is a contract between two adults, to love and support each other, and which is administered by cities and states.
Marriage is a social institution meant to bring people together not only spiritually but with legal proof. It should not matter what their beliefs or practices are (barring the horrific in terms of child abuse as Graham mentioned). Every family should be entitled to raise a child, to provide for that child, especially when someone else is unwilling to. To deny that is to deny the child a true chance at success, not only in life but to have social guides and guardians.
[...] (A response to a post on Truth/Slant) [...]
Really? Have you ever met any families with gay parents? In my experience, gay couples make some of the most best parents. They have to overcome obstacles to conceive or adopt children and therefore take the obligation very seriously. The argument that they are inferior parents is absurd to me.