Pointless?

The editorial board of the National Review, the flagship publication of the American conservative movement, has weighed in on the recent developments on the gay marriage front. As one might expect, the editorial reflects both the factual denialism and the narrow-minded callousness that has come to dominate conservative opinion on this issue. First, the Editors deny that public opinion on gay marriage is changing:

One of the great coups of the movement for same-sex marriage has been to plant the premise that it represents the inevitable future. This sense has inhibited even some who know perfectly well that marriage is by nature the union of a man and a woman. They fear that throwing themselves into the cause of opposing it is futile — worse, that it will call down the judgment of history that they were bigots.

Contrary to common perception, however, the public is not becoming markedly more favorable toward same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage rose during the 1990s but seems to have frozen in place (at least according to Gallup) since the high court of Massachusetts invented a right to same-sex marriage earlier this decade.

From a factual perspective, this is just head-in-the-sand denialism. There is all sorts of empirical evidence that the public is growing more accepting of the idea of gay marriage. What happened in Vermont yesterday would never have happened five years ago. And it's not hard to see from the age breakdown of poll respondents where this issue is heading. How completely insulated and oblivious do you have to be to think public opinion on this issue is static?

I also love the casual assertion that "marriage is by nature the union of a man and woman," as if marriage is some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon like evaporation or mitosis. Marriage is a social construct. It's whatever we say it is. And it has meant many different things over the course of human history. For instance, polygamous marriage was once very common (still is in some parts of the world). And for many centuries, marriage was primarily a financial arrangement and a way of ensuring inheritance rights. Women were essentially bought and sold. The modern concept of love as a basis for marriage is of relatively recent vintage. And civil marriage is a very different thing than religious marriage (which itself differs from religion to religion and culture to culture). The idea that there is some sort of platonic essence to marriage is just rubbish. Marriage was created by human beings and human beings can choose how they want to define it.

But even the Editors of the National Review seem to understand this because they go on to write this:

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

Pointless, huh? Tell that to these people. How can anyone so casually dismiss something as "pointless" when it is so obviously deeply meaningful to so many people? There are thousands of Vermonters who waited their whole lives for the kind of recognition they are now able to receive, many of whom probably never believed they'd live to see it.

Moreover, what possible basis is there for asserting that "marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children"? Says who? And if that's the case, why do we allow old or infertile people to marry? Why don't we require that married couples have children? And why do we allow married couples with children to divorce?

Plus, even if you accept the premise that the social policy behind marriage is to "channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living," doesn't that just make the case for gay marriage stronger? After all, some people don't have heterosexual desire. So why not try to channel (homosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living as well?

And finally, now that we've conceded that civil marriage is a matter of public policy, not some naturally occurring phenomenon, why should we ignore the basic fairness considerations that why apply to all other public policies? Why exclude one group from participating?

The Editors don't have answers to any of these questions, of course, because they've never seriously grappled with them. Their position on this issue is fraught with internal contradictions and unsupportable assertions. It isn't so much a considered policy position as an attempt to rationalize a gut-level discomfort with the very concept of homosexuality. The words and the arguments are a cover, a public justification for refusing to deal with the logical policy consequences of a world in which being gay is not considered wrong.