Gay marriage as a wedge issue
Eugene Volokh has a post linking to an article in that noted flaming liberal news organ the Wall Street Journal about gay marriage.
As noted, a survey of 17 years worth of data shows that disease rates are down, population growth is up and marriage rates have gone up. Contrary to what we're told by gay marriage opponents. Donviti points to this as a wedge issue.
Prof. Volokh notes that correlation isn't cause and that's certainly true and something to think about here but moreover the point stands. While you cannot necessarily attribute these positive factor changes to gay marriage it is clear that there is no net negative impact.
While I understand the arguments on both sides, ultimately I think the battle is over and gays won. In 10 years this will be a dead issue. Kids that are growing up today are devoid of homophobia. We're entering what some are calling a "post gay" era. That is, gays no longer define themselves primarily as gay. Rather, it's part of who they are but it doesn't drive everything. Now they're [insert profession] who are gay.
Ultimately the strongest case against gay marriage is, indeed, the slippery slope argument. Legally if one may marry anyone they choose there is no legal reasoning to deny group marriages or incestuous ones (esp. if the latter are homosexual or sterile straight couples). I don't say that flippantly. We have a group of people in this country agitating for the right to have sex with children. Sex. With. Children. Is it therefore unreasonable to believe that polyamorous people won't agitate for the protections of marriage?
The strongest case for gay marriage is what are they supposed to do? Would you rather encourage gays to have stable, long term relationships? Or would you rather have them changing partners frequently and never settling into long term stability?
(NB: I am using the term "marriage" here when I should be talking about civil unions. I believe that marriage is exclusively a sacrament and civil unions are recognized by the state. So, my relationship with my wife is a marriage in the eyes of my Church and a civil union in the eyes of the state. Churches should be able to marry/not marry whomever they choose. Not so the state.)
So long as they constrain the law to limit marriage to only two people who are not related and are both of consenting age and sound mind, I think the state ought to recognize that union. We have to give them somewhere to go. Let the churches worry about the question of marriage.
As noted, a survey of 17 years worth of data shows that disease rates are down, population growth is up and marriage rates have gone up. Contrary to what we're told by gay marriage opponents. Donviti points to this as a wedge issue.
Prof. Volokh notes that correlation isn't cause and that's certainly true and something to think about here but moreover the point stands. While you cannot necessarily attribute these positive factor changes to gay marriage it is clear that there is no net negative impact.
While I understand the arguments on both sides, ultimately I think the battle is over and gays won. In 10 years this will be a dead issue. Kids that are growing up today are devoid of homophobia. We're entering what some are calling a "post gay" era. That is, gays no longer define themselves primarily as gay. Rather, it's part of who they are but it doesn't drive everything. Now they're [insert profession] who are gay.
Ultimately the strongest case against gay marriage is, indeed, the slippery slope argument. Legally if one may marry anyone they choose there is no legal reasoning to deny group marriages or incestuous ones (esp. if the latter are homosexual or sterile straight couples). I don't say that flippantly. We have a group of people in this country agitating for the right to have sex with children. Sex. With. Children. Is it therefore unreasonable to believe that polyamorous people won't agitate for the protections of marriage?
The strongest case for gay marriage is what are they supposed to do? Would you rather encourage gays to have stable, long term relationships? Or would you rather have them changing partners frequently and never settling into long term stability?
(NB: I am using the term "marriage" here when I should be talking about civil unions. I believe that marriage is exclusively a sacrament and civil unions are recognized by the state. So, my relationship with my wife is a marriage in the eyes of my Church and a civil union in the eyes of the state. Churches should be able to marry/not marry whomever they choose. Not so the state.)
So long as they constrain the law to limit marriage to only two people who are not related and are both of consenting age and sound mind, I think the state ought to recognize that union. We have to give them somewhere to go. Let the churches worry about the question of marriage.
Comments