Gay Marriage: A Way Out, Part 5

This is part four of a series. Read part one here, part two here, part three here, and part four here.

In my previous post, I argued that believers in marriage equality, as a matter of principle, should oppose the movement for government-endorsed same sex marriage. Instead, they should lobby the government to cease referring to any relationships as "marriages." In this post, I argue that marriage traditionalists, as a matter of strategy, should join them. Many marriage traditionalists -- Maggie Gallagher most prominent among them -- assume that government recognition helps preserve traditional marriage norms. They are mistaken. Traditional marriage can only flourish after it is freed from government interference.

First, even if government-issued marriage certificates do send an important signal, they don't necessarily send the right one. Governments do not have high standards when deciding who should and should not marry. On the contrary, governments prudently leave it to families, churches and communities -- the bedrocks of what I call "social marriage" – to give marriage advice. Alas, when social marriage breaks down, we end up with appalling spectacles such as Britney Spears getting a government-recognized marriage during a Vegas spree. The government's laissez-faire approach ends up encouraging a cavalier attitude towards marriage, which gay marriage advocates rightly pillory. Too many people feel that if the government allows it, it must be okay. Even conservative institutions such as the Catholic Church have trouble countering the harmful messages sent by the government. By ceasing to certify marriages altogether, the government would make a healthier marriage ethos possible.

Second, government non-recognition may still be better than what we are otherwise heading towards, namely, government-recognized same sex marriage. Traditional marriage norms will be almost impossible to defend if gay marriage becomes widely accepted. Take the norm of abstinence before marriage. As they do not have to fear that sex will lead to pregnancy, gays are unlikely to see the merits of saving themselves for marriage. On the contrary, they will probably resist any efforts to reintroduce an abstinence norm. Similarly, in a world with gay marriage, it will be difficult to preach that young adults should settle down and get married. Only a minority of gays actually have an interest in getting married at all, and then (in many cases) only after they have passed their sexual primes. Unmarried gays will resist efforts to impose marriage as the best lifestyle. Finally, of course, gay marriage would obliterate what remains of the belief that the purpose of marriage is to produce children. Gay marriage, in sum, introduces into the pool of those eligible to marry a faction intrinsically hostile to traditional marriage norms.

Third, if the state stopped signaling its approval of marriage, that does not mean that social signals would cease altogether. Churches would still hold marriage sacred, couples would still wish to exchange public vows, and parents would still want their daughters to marry well and their sons to marry women who will make them happy. (In addition, as John O'Sullivan once argued, women would still want to compel their mates to marry them -- preferably in a way which signals a strong, lifetime commitment.) If the government stopped setting marriage norms, churches and families could more easily set them themselves. Civil society would fill whatever void is left by the state.

Fourth, a policy of marriage freedom would drain all the enthusiasm for gay marriage. Unlike traditional marriage, which predates the modern state by thousands of years, gay marriage is an artificial creation of government. Believers in gay marriage, despite being entirely free to do so, have not sought to create same-sex marriage norms and institutions independent of the government. Nor are they likely to start if the government stopped certifying any relationships as marriages. Most believers in government-recognized gay marriage feel that restricting marriage recognition to opposite sex couples unfairly discriminates against gays. That discrimination would cease the moment the government stopped certifying marriages altogether. The impetus for gay marriage having disappeared, the gay rights movement could then turn to other, less radical projects.

Fifth, marriage freedom would make it a fair fight for marriage traditionalists. The courts and even the legislatures around the country are dominated by people sympathetic to the gay marriage cause. So long as the government certifies some relationships as marriages, government-recognized gay marriage is inevitable. On the other hand, if the government stopped certifying any relationships as marriages, gay marriage would never arise spontaneously. Marriage exists to solve fundamentally dynastic problems. Parents need to ensure that their children choose suitable mates, women need to know that their lovers will not abandon them during pregnancy or child-rearing, and men need assurances that the children produced by their lovers are really theirs. Marriage norms have arisen to mediate the interests of these various reproductive stakeholders. Even today, they retain some causal connection to the biological reality that heterosexual sex tends to produce babies. So long as the government does not interfere, social conservatives to defeat gay marriage need only step back and let human nature prevail. Marriage norms will continue to be made by and for heterosexuals.

Sixth, marriage privatization would reduce the "slippery slope" threat that state-recognized gay marriage poses to religious liberty. After achieving government recognition of same-sex marriage, the gay rights movement will find it easier to outlaw private discrimination against gays or restrict anti-gay speech in the workplace. Traditional moral objections to homosexual acts may then become as verboten as racist attitudes are today. Take away official government endorsement of marriage, however, and the slippery slope from state-recognized gay marriage to prohibition of traditional moral teachings disappears. If social conservatives wish to preserve their liberties, they should favor marriage freedom.

Finally, marriage freedom is a political winner. It assuages the fears of social conservatives that they will be bullied into accepting opinions -- such as that a same sex couple can get "married" -- that they reject. At the same time, it plays into the status anxieties of upscale white voters afraid of being perceived as bigoted or intolerant. Outright opposition to state-recognized gay marriage once stimulated GOP voter turnout more than enough to compensate for its tendency to repel many young, wealthy and educated voters. Now that legislatures in Vermont and Maine have enacted gay marriage legislation independently of the courts, however, continued Republican opposition to gay marriage risks alienating upscale white voters even more. Marriage freedom gives Republicans and their allies a way out of the dilemma. They can keep the faith of marriage traditionalists while outflanking the Democrats as the party of modernity and tolerance.

Who knows -- perhaps marriage freedom could help forge a winning GOP coalition.