Comments on Schemes for Benefits for “friends” and others

I am grateful for the thoughts other contributors have made regarding marriage, relationships, and benefits. Today I shall respond to Rob’s post made earlier today [HERE]. I am grateful to him for presenting his interesting views.

So, let me begin with his reference to a “real-world” example of social reformation proposed by the organization BeyondMarriage. I have read their statement; moreover, I have studied the list of endorsers of the statement to which Rob gave us the link. I think it vital to our discussion that we take stock of the underlying current that has motivated the BeyondMarriage organization to craft the statement advocating the end of marriage. As they state in their own words,

In April 2006 a diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT and queer activists—some organizers, some scholars and educators, some funders, some writers and cultural workers—came together to discuss marriage and family politics as they exist in the United States today. We met over the course of two days for lively conversations in which there was often spirited disagreement. However, we do all stand in agreement with the statement entitled “Beyond Same Sex Marriage”. We offer this statement as a way to challenge ourselves and our allies working across race, class, gender and issue lines to frame and broaden community dialogues, to shape alternative policy solutions and to inform organizing strategies around marriage politics to include the broadest definitions of relationship and family.

The members of the BeyondMarriage organization assuredly have a stake in the outcome of the debate on same-sex marriage. By doing away with marriage, or by recognizing relationships as substitutes for marriage, the hurdles that stand in the way of the “equality” argument for SSM will be eliminated. The membership in this organization identifies with “LGBT” activism and their reasons for proposing an alternative to marriage likely emerge from the realization that same-sex relationships cannot be marriages. I do not see among its ranks representatives or activists for those relationships comprised of elderly siblings who care for one another in their old age, or of single or widowed children who care for elderly parents or grandparents or other elderly blood relatives who have no one to care for them. Before I recommend endorsement of some group advocating a political cause that will dramatically alter civil society in a fashion that contravenes Catholic principles, I believe that it is vital to understand what this group is about, and they have given me a good understanding of what they want, and implicit in this is why they want to go BeyondMarriage. Marriage is an institution that cannot be duplicated in the relationships they value most.

This brings me to a second point raised by Rob in his opposition to state-registered “friendships.” (I wonder, by the way, if the state would have some role in the dissolution of these friendships that the state would register, but I digress.) In his disagreement with the proposals for blunting advocacy for SSM with the state-registered friendship substitute, Rob states that, “Marriage should be privileged because of its channeling function: it calls us to a commitment… that is greater than our own cost-benefit maximizing episodic calculation.” I agree that marriage should be privileged but not for the reasons Rob tenders. Marriage as the world has known it (and surely as the United States has known it) is the foundation of the basic unit of society. It is the coming together in a special relationship between a man and a woman that ensures the posterity of our human race. It is a commitment, indeed, but a very particular commitment that is identified and fortified by the inexorable complementarity of man and woman. In this context, “marriage” between same-sex couples is impossible. The relationship of same-sex couples can be fueled by a sense of commitment, but it is a commitment of a very different sort that can never be the equal of marriage, which out of necessity requires the complementarity of the sexes.

This brings me to a third point that anticipates Rob’s potential objection to what I have just said. He mentions, “For those who oppose SSM, the challenge will be to articulate (in secularly accessible terms) a distinction between opposition to SSM and opposition to interracial marriage. The categorically procreative/biologically unitive argument is unlikely to do the trick.” I must disagree. First of all, reliance on Loving v. Virginia and analogizing opposition to SSM to the past opposition to interracial marriage does not withstand rational—secular or otherwise—scrutiny. The prohibition on interracial marriage was based on a superficial characteristic—skin pigmentation that had no bearing on the complementarity of the male and female. This prohibition paralleled the Nuremberg laws that prevented Jews from marrying Aryans because of another superficial feature. The anti-miscegenation statute in Loving and the racial purity laws of National Socialism could not deny the nature of the biology of the human person. The opposition to SSM is not the same as the opposition to interracial marriage. Advocates for SSM rely on the parallel but they astutely avoid making the critical distinction because it will not serve their objectives. The prohibition in Loving and the Nuremberg laws ignored human biology and the purposes for which man and woman were made; the prohibition to SSM does not.

I must respectfully disagree with Rob on the next point. The procreative/biological argument does do the “trick.” Moreover, it is not for the opponents to SSM to articulate the distinction because they have. The burden, in fact, is on the advocates for SSM. They shy from the scientific explanation that, “in secularly accessible terms”, provides the justification for opposition based on scientific fact. That is why the argument based on “commitment” becomes an attractive substitute, but it must and will fail. Its failure is inextricably linked to the reality that there are many relationships that have commitments—but commitments can be ignored. And when they are, what happens to the commitment so vital to the advocacy for SSM?

This brings me to a final point for today which relates to Rob’s contention that “The status quo will not hold.” He then offers a robust explanation why he thinks this is the case. But I must test his justification by presenting it word for word and merely delete the specific references to “gay,” “lesbian,” “homosexual,” and “homosexuality” and replace them with substitutes. When I do, the reason for maintaining the status quo in opposition to SSM should be all the more clear:

“_____ and _____ are visible, and they (and their relationships) are rapidly gaining acceptance as more Americans encounter them in their everyday circles. The shift in attitudes on _______ from my parents’ generation to mine has been remarkable, but I would predict it will be nothing compared to the shift in attitudes from my generation to the next. From what I have seen thus far, moral opposition to ______ relationships is just not conceivable to 98% of the law students I’ve taught.”

Allow me to make a Loving substitution that preserves Rob’s language but not his point:

“Blacks and whites are visible, and they (and their relationships) are rapidly gaining acceptance as more Americans encounter them in their everyday circles. The shift in attitudes on interracial relationships from my parents’ generation to mine has been remarkable, but I would predict it will be nothing compared to the shift in attitudes from my generation to the next. From what I have seen thus far, moral opposition to interracial relationships is just not conceivable to 98% of the law students I’ve taught.”

Same-sex marriage is not an option, but that does not mean the path our nation and our world should take is not evident. It is, and it is to stay the course. It may be that the status quo will not hold, but its failure to do so will not be because of any flaw in its justifying rationale that is based on objective reason. It will be due to the imposition of pure positivism and its recurrent ally, totalitarianism.

RJA sj