ThePolitic.com has devoted considerable space and energy to discussing and analyzing the pros and cons of same sex marriage. Most of our contributors oppose SSM for reasons conventionally labeled as traditional (i.e., marriage has a unique or even sacred place in society and our moral economy).
Not that many people are aware of the Beyond Marriage movement, which is composed largely of people on the left. These people think that SSM is only one step toward their eventual goal, which is dismantling marriage altogether. Critics of SSM have argued that the Beyond Marriage movement simply radicalizes the principles that are largely implicit in the logic of legitimating SSM.
However much the logic of both SSM-proponents and the Beyond Marriage folks overlaps, there seems to be some overlap of political logic between the Beyond Marriage folks and those who would prefer to have the state remove itself from the marriage business altogether. The Nation reports on how various BM proponents argue for economic dependency as the basis for extending benefits to domestic partnership arrangements.
This, in effect, is identical to the “civil union” or “domestic partnership” solution that the Law Commission of Canada proposed several years ago. Today, SSM-proponents reject that as “backward” because it doesn’t “recognize” SSM-relationships (SSM is about “recognition”, not about economic benefits).
However, it’s noteworthy that that argument has been embraced from the left side, by those who have realized that SSM is an empty category.
While it’s unlikely a political solution on this basis can be achieved in Canada, now that the Harper government has surrendered on the file, but it’ll be interested to see how things play out in the US
Nicol Dumoulin wrote:
I argued this for years to people and nobody would listen. When I attended Queen’s University from 1989-93 we were repeatedly taught that marriage was a ‘Judeo Christian’ institurion akin to ’slavery’ for women that must be destroyed. The academics there said SSM was the way to go about doing it.
Sadly, most people do not know and couldn’t care less. Whenever I hear the left use the phrase ‘hidden agenda’ I just laugh. There is a hidden agenda of course…and it is happening in the hallowed halls of academia and law schools.
The hundreds of academics that signed this petition give testament to that. It is also no coincidence that when the Liberals wanted to commission a paper on polygamy they went to Queen’s University and got Martha Baily to write a paper that had the same thesis as this petition. I proudly oppose SSM and will do so until my dying day. No amount of name calling, propaganda or ostracizing will make me change that.
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 10:11 am | Permalink
Simon wrote:
Yawn….are you losers still beating this tired old drum? Get it through your cromagnon skulls We WON you LOST!!!!! Mwahahaha! And besides the last Statscan report showed that gay marriage is actually strengthening the institution of marriage. Ha ha ha. You can’t even get your facts right. But how could you?
You can dress it all you like but you’re just a bunch of loser homophobes…
PS Nicol can I please marry you….please, please, please….just for a day?
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 10:43 am | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
I can’t really comment on a segment of people wanting to undermine marriage. We are pretty active in the pro-ssm movement and have encountered no such people.
There’s certainly no point debating the polygamy strawman, you’ll just have to sort that out yourselves.
Regardless of ssm, the institution of marriage seems troubled. Rampant divorce, separations, and admissions of extra-martial affairs. Pontificate away on why that is, I believe it has something to do with the ever-increasing materialistic nature of our society, 2-income families, etc.
My point, however, is that if you’re concerned about the state of marriage, you’ve got much bigger fish to fry than SSM.
If you’ve got an open-mind (I’m really trying to be genuine when I say that) you could try reading this:
http://www.chapters.in…%3a+‘why+gay+marriage’
A leading Washington journalist argues that gay marriage is the best way to preserve and protect society’s most essential institution Two people meet and fall in love. They get married, they become upstanding members of their community, they care for each other when one falls ill, they grow old together.
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 11:06 am | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
Simon: Thanks for that insight.
Scott: Rauch is certainly one of the more thoughtful proponents of SSM. Unlike Canadian proponents, whose arguments are based more on envy and formal equality, Rauch (and Andrew Sullivan) argue that SSM moderates homosexual erotic desires. It tames them, so to speak. Their argument, which appeals to a certain view of human nature (and the manner in which conventions form nature), is more thoughtful and fruitful than the kinds argued in Canada. Even so, I’m doubtful people like Rauch and Sullivan can hold the dam for long because their argument for limiting marriage to two can’t hold. While they properly argue that polygamy is common in backward societies, they can’t make the same argument for so-called polyamorous unions like the one at the heart of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Montreal sex club. Also, I’m doubtful they have much of an argument against bisexual people seeking “flexible” unions to recognize their bisexuality. In short, they make a partial appeal to nature against the equality/envy arguments of people like Simon (above), but their partial commitment undermines their cause.
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Nicol Dumoulin wrote:
Scott,
You are right that things such as rampant divorce, separation and affairs are just as problematic for marriage, but SSM is a sympton of this, not the solution.
Similarly, as Tom points out, the argument against polygamy goes only so far. Especially when you now have recent court rulings such as the one where a child can have 3 parents.
“They get married, they become upstanding members of their community, they care for each other when one falls ill, they grow old together.”
The problem with SSM marriage is that this is not the definition of marriage that SSM adheres to. SSM comes from the well spring that marriage is a transient institution that is done for economic reasons and is not for life or love at all.
Is it a coincidence that many of the first couples who married under SSM are now divorced?
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Hi Nicol,
I suggest that your contentions are emotionally, rather than factually, derived. There are any number of sources to help you understand this if you’d like.
You could read the book I suggested. As Tom points out, there is a strong case to be made for how and why the institution of marriage can evolve gay culture, rather than the other way round. In chapter 8, Rauch talks about this, and asks readers to imagine what hetro-culture would be like if there was no marriage. Think about it. Gay culture, in one sense, is a symptom of not only being socially stigmatized, but legally handcuffed.
Again, as far a polygamy goes, it’s a red-herring to me. You would also find that the “battle” against polygamy (although I would wager all I own that there never will be one) would include in equal measure both gay and straight.
If there’s a good argument against polygamy, it’s likely to be a fairly complex public-policy argument having to do with marriage patterns, sexism, economics, and the like. Such arguments are as available to gay-marriage advocates as to gay-marriage opponents. So when gay-rights opponents ask me to explain why polygamy is wrong, I say to them, “You first.â€
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27345.html
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
Scott: Thanks for responding to part of my comment on Rauch. Now, if you don’t mind, respond to my criticism of his position.
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 8:22 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
I’ll be honest with you Tom, I’m not sure how to respond other than how I already have.
I submit that any argument regarding polygamy exists outside the relevance as it pertains to same-sex marriage.
Each legal element as it is related to marriage must be judged on its own merit.
Traditional marriage, as redefined by the legal definition, is the lawful union of two people. Anything beyond that, who knows. I do know that, based on polls and research, there is virtually non-existent support for polygamist and/or flexible (multi-partner) marriage. Arguments against/for any of these scenarios are equally relevant to SSM advocates and opponents.
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
Marsilio Facino wrote:
“I submit that any argument regarding polygamy exists outside the relevance as it pertains to same-sex marriage.”
You’ve made an assertion without any evidence to support it. What, exactly, does the phrase “exists outside the relevance” mean?
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 9:51 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
If you feel compelled to provide a foundation of evidence that supports the contention that SSM is inexorably linked to a legalization of polygamy, have at it.
The realization that they are not linked, either morally, socially, or in the eyes of the law will undoubtedly impede your progress, but best of luck!
Posted on 31-Jan-07 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Scott, I think your standard of “evidence” is a false expectation. Political action is taken for good or bad reason, so any question of political action is always one of rationale.
That there is no “evidence” that SSM ultimately results in the legalization of polygamy, at least not yet, is not surprising. How could there be? It just hasn’t happened YET! People have bet everything they own before on something they took for certain and still lost; so you should question the rationale before expecting evidence.
The more pertinent question is why the legalization of SSM makes the legalization of polygamy more amenable to Canadian jurisprudence. And on this point, critics of SSM have long argued that the number two is an arbitrary qualifier of what makes a marriage.
Furthermore, when one dispenses with the dogma of sexual orientation, prepared to speak of erotic desire in more common sense terms, it is easy to see that the qualifier of sex matters; not only between one man and one woman because the sexes are unique to each other, but because it takes one man and one woman to actually HAVE sex and make babies.
Posted on 01-Feb-07 at 10:25 am | Permalink
Tom Cerber wrote:
Scott: Maybe I can respond by dissecting part of your response, which I find a bit confusing:
“Traditional marriage, as redefined by the legal definition, is the lawful union of two people. Anything beyond that, who knows. I do know that, based on polls and research, there is virtually non-existent support for polygamist and/or flexible (multi-partner) marriage. Arguments against/for any of these scenarios are equally relevant to SSM advocates and opponents.”
I don’t understand why you start your paragraph with reference to the LEGAL definition and then switch immediately to popular support for various other arrangements. First, SSM never had majority support (polls consistently showed 1/3 opposition, 1/3 support, and 1/3 support for civil unions, not SSM). Second, all you have to ask is whether the current LEGAL defintion of TWO people can hold up to a Charter challenge. I agree that polygamy probably wouldn’t. But that is not the goal of the Beyond Marriage people who think that number should be eradicated by the definition so numerous other groupings could claim marriage. Moreover, the number TWO is but an imitation of the exclusionary rule of husband-wife which is based on biological coupling. Since technology and SSM make biological coupling irrelevant, courts can have no reason to go the way the Beyond Marriage folks want - which is, eliminate the category altogether in favor of polyamorous groupings.
Posted on 01-Feb-07 at 10:31 am | Permalink