There exists arguments in favor of recognizing same-sex cohabitation as marriage. One argument looks very familiar to social conservatives: "It is a great benefit to children if their parents are married." Indeed, one may say it looks like the 800lb gorilla in the room that Op-Ed describes, and those that don't know better would call it the conservative case for same-sex marriage.
Those that see the gorilla are far ahead of their comrades in arms that don't. Of those that are this author has engaged in this debate on web forums, only a small minority of opponents have valued marriage. Experience puts the minority at less than 10%. It is too often that we see someone set against the institution we all know and love, as exemplified in comments section of Op-Ed's essay mentioned previously.
As Stanley Kurtz points out, there is a large contingent of people who see endorsing marriage for same-sex couples as a way to destroy marriage.
True, a small number of relatively conservative gay spokesmen do consider the social effects of gay matrimony, insisting that they will be beneficent, that homosexual unions will become more stable. Yet another faction of gay rights advocates actually favors gay marriage as a step toward the abolition of marriage itself. This group agrees that there is a slippery slope, and wants to hasten the slide down.
They may be identified by their inference that marriage is not worth as much as you think. The capacity to procreate, they might say, is a mean-spirited division worth less than the platitude slipping off their tongue. The differences in the capacities of each gender is marginalized under a similar auspice. These voices seem to shout in unison that excellence and capacity are enemies to the social state they wish us to become. One might call this the liberal case for marriage.
But when is the liberal case for marriage not a liberal cause? Apparently when it talks about family values. What political coalition was able to triangulate family values into the "conservative" camp? As the squatters of the political landscape one would not expect the conservatives set out to conquer "family values" under their own flag. Basal political ideology dictates it was most likely at one time common ground that was abandoned by liberals.
Either way, in an effort to sound socially conservative we are told that marriage is a security blanket that must be wrapped around any household where a child exists. Any responsible adults found in that household committed to the care of the child must then be called parents in a feat accomplished by, we presume, judicial fiat.
The reasoning for this is not too difficult to grasp. It seems that children born in households that have parents who are committed to married are less of a drain on society. In fact, it would appear that with every qualifier we use to modify "parent" marks a step away from this ideal arrangement. And subsequently they don't do as well at parenting.
Generally, adoptive parents experience obstacles in raising their child that the ideal situation does not. Step-parents married to divorces experience even more. A step parent who is simply co-habiting with a parent, or parents who were never married seem to have an even tougher row to hoe. Foster parents seem to have even more obstacles to rearing children than the rest. The more obstacles the more we see a greater risk failure.
So while it seems like a wacky plot line in a Joseph Heller book or Pogo cartoon, the answer we are told is the socially conservative option is to do away with the obstacles. If we simply call them all parents, and in so doing make them all marriageable. The obstacles, one would conclude, are created by the distinctions rather than the distinctions created to demarcate the obstacles.
While what is a liberal or conservative ideal is ever changing, the presumption that changing how we view things changes how reality operates seems to be consistent with liberal ideals. So it seems to me that the stated conservative case, is really the same old liberal case. As it attempts to remove distinction and apply benefits more liberally, we see that it most closely resembles the liberal case for marriage.
If I were to paint a picture, it would be of an 800lb Gorilla in the middle of the room between one conservative and one liberal. The conservative claims that the gorilla is on his side, the side of traditional marriage. The liberal then claims the gorilla is on his side and in favor of SSM. But because the conservative claims the big ape as an ally the liberal adds that this must mean the liberal case can be renamed the conservative case.
Pardon the use of the Democrat Donkey and Republican Elephant. In actuality both party's presidential candidates supported the sanctity of marriage. This picture was the closest I could find.
Now in full disclosure there is nothing wrong with being liberal. I identify with the liberals on many grounds. I think the world has changes that need to be made. Chasing down whether "liberal" or "conservative" is a pejorative in this discussion would cause one to completely miss the point.
(coming next, SS-cohabitors attempt to trap the gorilla) ...
0 comments,:
Post a Comment