In a recent Miami Herald opinion column, Leonard Pitts (1) makes light of statements made by President Obama that his views on same-sex marriage are “evolving.” He urges the President to “evolve faster,” so that marriage equality is extended to gay men and lesbians. Mr Pitt’s emphasis of the word “evolve” is important and we need to explore it further. The word means change over time. Science teaches evolution is not a one-time event. It is a continuing process. Before we deliberately evolve marriage in our society, we need to take a longer view of where this process of continuing change will ultimately lead us.
The goal of same-sex marriage supporters is to redefine the traditional marriage formula. Instead of one man and one woman marrying, the formula would be altered to allow two men to marry, or two women. As recent opinion polls have shown, an increasing number of Americans think same-sex marriage is fine (2). However, there is every reason to think the evolution of marriage will continue long after same-sex marriage wins the day. Once you change one parameter of the traditional marriage formula, other aspects of the formula will eventually be challenged. Here are a few possibilities; each them has a cultural history and a popular base of support.
Polyamory (group marriages): If we evolve the marriage formula so two same-sex people can marry, it is reasonable to ask why can it only be two people marrying? Why not three or four or more? A great many societies have embraced polyamory its various forms (3) and if a multiple-partner family moved here, would it not be culturally bigoted if we failed to recognize the union? There are advocacy groups within the US claiming: “Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle” (4a, 4b). Watch this video about a Reality-TV family in America fighting for the right to multi-marry (5). On what basis is this version of marriage any less valid than same-sex marriage? Everyone involved is fully consenting and happy.
Incest: If we open the marriage formula to same-sex partners, then we may be forced to consider marriages between members of the same biological family, such as father and daughter, mother and son, sibling and sibling (6). Many countries already allow first-cousins to marry and Sweden allows half-siblings to marry (7). The same or more may be demanded here in the USA. Consider this personal appeal: “You can't help who you fall in love with, it just happens. I fell in love with my sister and I'm not ashamed ... I only feel sorry for my mom and dad, I wish they could be happy for us. We love each other. It's nothing like some old man who tries to f*** his three-year-old, that's evil and disgusting ... Of course we're consenting, that's the most important thing. We're not f***ing perverts. What we have is the most beautiful thing in the world." (8) How many times have we heard the same plea from gays and lesbians?
According to an author at Slate, we cannot dismiss incest too quickly: "The easy answer—that incest causes birth defects —won't cut it. Birth defects could be prevented by extending to sibling marriage the rule that five states already apply to cousin marriage: You can do it if you furnish proof of infertility or are presumptively too old to procreate. If you're in one of those categories, why should the state prohibit you from marrying your sibling?" (6).
Married Children: It is more of a stretch, but consider another evolution. If same-sex people can marry, then we may be asked to amend the marriage formula so that not only adults can marry, but so can children, or a mix of ages, such as a middle-aged man and a nine year old boy or girl. It is legal within Saudi Arabia and Yemen (9), and there was a recent high-profile marriage in the US between a 51-year old movie star and his 16-year old girlfriend. Former Lost and Green Mile actor Doug Hutchison says "We're aware that our vast age difference is extremely controversial... But we're very much in love and want to get the message out there that true love can be ageless." (16) Hmm, in the spirit of ageless love, could we lower the age of consent any further like some other nations have done? Consider these points:
1. Girls already have adult-level privacy rights: In Bellotti v. Baird (1979), the US Supreme Court ruled a minor can have an abortion without parent consent if she is sufficiently mature: “many, perhaps a large majority of 17-year olds are capable of informed consent, as are a not insubstantial number of 16-year olds, and some even younger.” (10) By extension, if a girl 15 years or or younger can make a life altering decision whether to bring a life into the world, as as a matter of privacy, then perhaps she can also make a life altering decision of who and when to marry.
2. Adult-child sex may not cause cause psychological damage: According to a new book summarizing a range of research studies on survivors of childhood sexual abuse, most victims grow up with few or no psycho-pathological consequences (see myth #37 in 11). This implies marriage of adults with minors may not cause damage to the psyche of a youngster, particularly if it is consensual within marriage.
3. If same-sex intimacy is now ok, then adult-child sex may be ok, too: The Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) that same-sex intimacy can no longer be punished simply because it is was once considered immoral. Morals regarding sexual behavior have changed over the years within the US and the court decided to be lenient as a result (12). On this basis, if the American public became comfortable with adult-child sex, the Supreme Court imply they could be swayed to permit it. The success of the same-sex marriage movement shows Americans will relabel something as "good" they once considered "evil" if they are continually blasted with supporting messages over a several year period.
Now, I realize not every possible marriage scenario will see the light of day, but it is clear the definition of legitimate marriage is dramatically shifting. If same-sex marriage is ok, there are few robust reasons to dismiss all the other types of unions I mention above. Each is an alternative lifestyle and another variation to the traditional marriage formula. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue for individual freedom over tradition and government control. If individual liberty becomes the new standard, then we should extend the same liberty to any other people wishing to marry even if the particular version of marriage violates deep-seated cultural taboos. One could argue that any marriage arrangement is justifiable if all parties involved give their consent. If we permit same-sex marriage, then proponents of polygamy, incest, or adult-child marriages may insist they also get their way in the spirit of liberty and justice, for all. Imagine the future civil rights battles that could ensue if these fringe groups garnered as much manpower, money, and media support as the same-sex marriage movement.
This is greatly troubling to me, and as a result, I do not support same-sex marriage because it provides a strong legal precedent for other groups (polygamy, etc.) to bolster their positions. I am a firm believer in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (13). DOMA provides a protective hedge against nationwide recognition of many kinds of marital unions that threaten the integrity of the family as we know it. DOMA was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton after passing in both houses of congress by large majorities. My hope is our elected leadership and a majority of US States will continue to recognize the wisdom embodied in the DOMA marriage formula.
If you do oppose same-sex marriage, please make your voice heard in concert with others There are several organizations you can contact and become involved (14a, 14b, 14c). Be sure to share this article with your friends, too!
If you still support same-sex marriage, know that the same arguments used by same-sex marriage supporters also serve the causes of a other sexual orientations and marriage preferences. Before you dismiss this article as "slippery slope" rhetoric, understand there are many family law professors who deliberately support same-sex marriage to create a legal wedge for legalizing polyamory, which is their ultimate aim (15). If distinguished professors of law from the following universities see the connection, you should, too: Harvard University, New York University, Cornell University, University of Michigan, University of Southern California, American University, and University of Utah.
References
(1) http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/28/2289798/obamas-semantic-con-job-on-gay.html
(2) http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/
(3) http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf
Advocacy groups within the US claim: “Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed polygamy is the next civil rights battle”
(4a) http://www.pro-polygamy.com/
(4b) http://www.nationalpolygamyadvocate.com/ (be sure to watch the video)
(6) http://www.slate.com/id/2081904/
(7) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6424337.stm
(9) http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Saudi-court-confirms-validity-of-marriage-for-eight-year-old-girl-15000.html
(11) http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X,descCd-tableOfContents.html
(13) Defense of Marriage Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_marriage_act
If you do oppose same-sex marriage, please make your voice heard in concert with others.
(14a) http://www.frc.org/
(14b) http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3479573/k.E2D0/About_NOM.htm
(14c) http://www.cwalac.org/about.shtml
(15) http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?page=3
(16) http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/lost-actor-marries-16-year-old-girlfriend/
"This is greatly troubling to me, and as a result, I do not support same-sex marriage because it provides a strong legal precedent for other groups (polygamy, etc.) to bolster their positions."
ReplyDeletePrecisely the same position could have been held for the same reasons to oppose redefining marriage to allow interracial couples to marry.