Ahead of the Curve
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 19 May 2008 | 19 responses
Professor Todd Zywicki, writing at his usual digs at The Volokh Conspiracy, raises the same point which I raised late last week: why does the California Supreme Court believe discrimination against homosexuals is any worse than discrimination against polygamists? Prof. Zywicki writes:
So the question is, if you get rid of the “man-woman” prong as largely arbitrary, why does this not lead to getting rid of the “one-one” prong as well? It seems like the new line is just as arbitrary as the old one.
Now my sense is that the courts simply say that they are distinguishable, but don’t say why. They seem to simply say that they are different. And as Eugene’s post implies, merely saying they are different without saying why doesn’t hold up to scrutiny later.
Meanwhile, addressing the same California case, Jason Kuznicki revives a traditional theme of his and argues that nurturing is the true purpose of marriage, not reproduction, government benefits, or romantic fulfillment. This topic was debated here previously in 2005. My response to Jason can be found here, and responses to my post were made by Paul Musgrave here and by Adam Tierney here.
19 Responses to “Ahead of the Curve”
I always thought that marriage is about settling down with one other person. Human nature being what it is, when you settle down with five other people, jealousy is pretty likely going to rear its ugly head eventually and presto – the polygamous family unit dissolves.
Jerry makes a good point about why polygamous marriages are unlikely to be stable. Then again, similar arguments have been made about homosexual marriages.
It’s also true that most of the polygamous marriages in the world involve at least a very disparate level of power between (usually) the man and his multiple wives–if not outright abuse. However, polygamy advocates could argue that abuse should be handled in the same way as abuse in monogamous marriages, and non-abusive polygamous marriages should be lawful.
Surely there will be a polygamous test case of this before too long. Honestly, as long as there’s a hard line against the abusive elements of actual polygamous practice, I can’t see why we shouldn’t allow it. The problem is that this is such a powerful emotional bludgeon in the discourse of attempts to prevent gay marriage — a great many Americans are emotionally prepared to accept gay marriage, but not polygamy, so the threat of the latter can still be used to make attacks on the former. But that’s just political noise-making, and not a substantive argument.
However, I don’t know how many of the rights & benefits of spousehood can be distributed easily across multiple partners (e.g., the right to have a privileged say in cases of cessation of treatment); and we obviously don’t want it to be easier for people to marry just for green cards, health insurance, and the like
Polygamy as practiced in the United States does seem to have a high propensity toward abuse of women and children — not only denial of basic rights but sexual abuse, beatings, forced intercourse and humiliation. Polygamy in the US seems to be based in the very notion of abuse of power and denial of humanity, so I don’t see Eric’s suggestion as plausible. While low self esteem thrust by culture onto many gays may also lead to abuse issues, I don’t see a level of such anywhere approaching that of polygamy.
If the primary distguishing mark of marriage is the production of children, those who cannot bear children or are beyond child-bearing age shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
There are people who try to approach this from the standpoint of the faith, but what they really do is approach it from the viewpoint of the church, which has generally shown an attitude ranging from indifference to hostility and only more rarely hospitality.
My difficulty is concern for handling this through the courts. That said, the more I read, the more I conclude that many Christians set and keep homosexuals apart as outcasts. As my own Bishop has noted, though, the worst sins are usually our secret sins.
Again, Barna claims conservative evangelicals have among the worst divorce statistics. Why then don’t they focus on matters that truly undermine marriage instead of exploiting the reviled of society for often narrow political gains?
That polygamous relationships may cause jealousy in some circumstances – or even most circumstances – may be a reason to not enter into one. But under the paradigm and reasoning outlined by the California Supreme Court, this should have virtually no bearing on discriminating against polygamous people in the “fundamental right” of marriage.
I’d be interested in knowing if gays living in committed relationships but denied the right to unions or marriage are afforded protections from unreasonable searches and seizures comparable to married couples.
In most instances, noting similar to spousal immunity exists, which immunity makes for significant contributions toward domestic stability.
I think that for me, a single night in jail on pending charges I consider not supported by the evidence makes me all the more sensitive to the protections society provides to the vulnerable, for I have resources available to me that are beyond the reach of most. I see little concern for such protection here.
I think there has been sufficient documentation of underreporting of crimes against the glbt community as to question whether or not current policies promote Christian values or mock them.
Again, I have concerns about this matter being handled through the courts, but I again dispute the notion that modern marriage is rooted in the Christian faith.
In addition to the question of polygamy, I also wonder if these sorts of rulings open the door to attacks on the length of marriage contracts. Governments have made divorce easier, but the initial marriage agreement is still available in only one length: ’til death. And that aspect of the marriage contract is strongly tied to religious tradition.
If government’s involvement in marriage is all about nurturing and government benefits, then I’m in doubt as to why individuals are allowed, at least initially, to enter only into a lifelong contract. Given the modern divorce rate, some couples may prefer to hedge their bets at the start, and avoid the aggravation and cost of divorce proceedings down the line.
Joel wrote:
Barna claims conservative evangelicals have among the worst divorce statistics. Why then don’t they focus on matters that truly undermine marriage instead of exploiting the reviled of society for often narrow political gains?
First, part of the reason that conservative Christians have apparently high divorce rates is that less-conservative couples don’t even bother getting married, so when they split up it’s not a divorce. I suspect that if one were able to combine actual divorce rates with the rate at which cohabiting couples split up, conservative Christians would be seen to have more stable relationships.
But to your main point, I am certainly very concerned about heterosexual divorce rates. I would support rolling back the liberalization of divorce laws, but unfortunately I think the chance of that happening is virtually zero. Nevertheless, I still do whatever I can to support initiatives that seek to strengthen marriage.
So I think that it’s false to say that evangelicals are ignoring “matters that truly undermine marriage.” Politically, gay marriage is the only issue that’s in play right now to such a large extent. But evangelicals are also seeking to strengthen marriage in many ways. Just a quick perusal of the websites of either Focus on the Family or the Family Research Council would reveal this.
First, part of the reason that conservative Christians have apparently high divorce rates is that less-conservative couples don’t even bother getting married, so when they split up it’s not a divorce.
You’re wrong to want to conflate the two. Usually, when two people recognize that they aren’t ready for the full-on, life-long commitment we call marriage, it’s known as maturity. That evangelicals belong to a church that bullies them into the institution of marriage before the individuals are ready is not something that should be held against what you call “less conservative” couples.
That evangelicals belong to a church that bullies them into the institution of marriage before the individuals are ready is not something that should be held against what you call “less conservative” couples.
I don’t know much about the practices of “evangelicals,” but I would be surprised if a conservative Christian tendency to get married can be fairly attributed to bullying. Are you criticizing their churches for opposing cohabitation, or are you accusing their churches of pressuring them into marriage unusually early either in life or a particular relationship?
Also, you appear to be saying that it is a sign of maturity when people who decide that they are not ready for marriage opt for cohabitation instead. Is this the point that you intended to make?
Karl,
You are correct, “bullying” was too strong a word to use, but given Eric’s dismissive and presumptive attitude toward those who are not conservative Christians (who “don’t even bother getting married”, as if his is the only correct path one can take in this world), I felt it necessary to respond in kind. I should not have lowered myself to that level.
Still, I don’t think you can deny that, at least historically, the Church (both Catholic and Protestant) has placed an enormous amount of peer pressure on children to marry early–particularly girls, as teens and early 20s were prime birthing years in the eras before modern medical practice. Social normals also pushed marriage for economic and political purposes, and as a nexus of power, the Church as much a tool as any other to convince children that lifelong commitment to someone you don’t know very well was the right thing to do.
Secularization of our culture has help moved us away from Christianity’s peculiar forms of arranged/contrived marriages, so I’m always curious what is meant when conservative Christians call for protection of “traditional” marriage.
Karl,
Also, you appear to be saying that it is a sign of maturity when people who decide that they are not ready for marriage opt for cohabitation instead. Is this the point that you intended to make?
Yes. These days, cohabitation makes economic sense for many young couples. If they have to choose between cohabitation, living apart (which they cannot afford), and marriage (a contract with a life term, if we are to take it seriously), I do think it is a sign of maturity that cohabitation is selected.
I know, we’ve all heard the statistics that somehow point to cohabitation as a risk factor, but we are all similarly familiar with those statistics’ flaws; remove from the study all those couples whose religion expressly forbids or strongly discourages divorce in most or all circumstances, and I would expect divorce rates to level out between couples that did and did not cohabitate prior to marriage.
Eric,
Researcher Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas found that non-evangelical teens’ average age at first sexual encounter was 16.7, whereas for evangelical teens it was 16.3. That casts some doubt on whether or not Barna’s finding that divorce among conservative evangelicals is 36% higher than among mainliners. Barna has also found across the board that moral behavior of conservative evangelicals is not at a higher standard than non-conservative evangelicals. Barna might be wrong in his research methods. So, I’m not claiming that you have no point,only that there have been troubling findings regarding whether or not stricter church doctrine positively impacts either marriage or moral behavior in general.
Judgment is an important part of God’s grace, but I see trends toward a legalistic doctrine in which an ecompassing agape is downplayed. One of the reasons I posted at Connexions about being in jail was to test whether or not Christians will reach out across the theological divide to offer prayers and support. Over the years, I’ve received numerous strongly worded emails condemning or questioning my theology, my opposition to the invasion of Iraq, etc., but with three exceptions, all of the prayer support came from mainliners. I fear that may be the way mainliners also treat conservative evangelicals.
However, what I have seen is an on-going and reckless mounting of attacks on the faith of others; heresy can be a cheap and easy shot to take at others because the leveling of the charge is much easier than defending agains it. Even Joe Carter wrote of his disappointment in finding that many conservative evangelicals attacked not just Mike Huckabee’s positions, but virtually his entire character.
I would like to see a day in which a faith community could include both those who believe recognition of gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage and those who believe it is a more complex issue but not essential to the traditions and doctrine of the Church.
Maintaining a traditional view of marriage is important, far more important than the desires of the individuals in the marriage. Just ask the folks in Balla, India:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSDEL29449420080516
This is the same comment Scalia made in Lawrence v. Texas. How can we invalidate laws against sodomy (and homosexual sodomy) and keep laws against incest, polygamy, sex with animals, etc.
Michael,
I’m sorry my comment came off as “dismissive and presumptive” to you. I assure you that was not my intent, and I apologize that I didn’t choose my words more carefully.
I admit that I view cohabitation in many cases as a lazy, commitment-phobic arrangement, but my main point was to bring up what I saw as a potential factor that could skew the statistics.
But since you brought it up, I will challenge your assertion that young couples “have to choose between cohabitation, living apart (which they cannot afford), and marriage.” What about living with roommates until one is ready to make a commitment to marriage?
This is the same comment Scalia made in Lawrence v. Texas. How can we invalidate laws against sodomy (and homosexual sodomy) and keep laws against incest, polygamy, sex with animals, etc.
I would like to think this comment was rhetorical instead of sincere.
“I would like to think this comment was rhetorical instead of sincere.”
Why, what the SC stated was: Gee, what ever consenting adults do concerning bedroom activities, is there own business, and government cant be involved.
Scalia is right, once that line was erased, there are limits.
That doesn’t make any sense of the Scalia line as quoted (though I don’t know if it was quoted correctly). Incest, maybe, but polygamy is a matter of marital status, not bedroom activity — there are not, to my knowledge, any laws against carnal threesomes, just against all three persons being married to each other — and, unless you’re willing to out-PETA PETA, I don’t think you’d consider “sex with animals” to be a matter of “consenting adults”.