« Happy Blogiversary | Main | Why Uranium Matters »

July 14, 2003

Courage and Convictions

As gay marriage closes in on becoming a reality in modern American society, the Republican Party appears to have thoroughly tossed out whatever convictions it may once have held. I’m not talking about the question of using a Constitutional amendment to take powers away from the states or the determined use of government powers to control people’s personal lives, although those are certainly areas ripe for discussion. But what I find most interesting about the current set of tirades in opposition to gay marriage is the clear subtext: Republicans don’t think marriage is a very good solution to the question of families, and they don’t trust the market to find one. An odd position, for a party devoted to the principles of the free market.

Let’s start with the basic premise that if a need exists, markets will generally work to fill that need. (Assuming the need is large enough; one person wanting something won’t get the job done.) Look at blogs: before weblogs came along, there was no real demand for a tool that would allow people to ‘collect’ links and add them to their web site. Yet today you can visit blogs and find literally dozens who use Blogrolling.com to handle their links. A need came into being because of the proliferation of blogs, and someone stepped up to fill that need.

Applying that to human relations, it seems there is quite a demand for some kind of bonding ritual between people. Currently marriage fits that bill for the vast majority of people, but there is a great deal of concern that extending marriage to apply to any but heterosexual couples will damage the institution. Stanley Kurtz seems to be leading the charge with his claims that gay marriage will lead to heterosexuals taking marriage less seriously, with eventual consequences to families as men choose not to marry. (Won’t someone please think of the children!?) Marriage, to Kurtz, alleviates the problem of men fathering children and abandoning the mother, by giving men a deal of sorts: guaranteed sex in exchange for their taking responsibility for their children. And perhaps there is some need for that between people.

But if there is such a need, and marriage filled it, it seems plausible to suggest the market worked. Apparently human men used to run around impregnating women all willy-nilly, to the detriment of the species, until marriage came along and we all settled down to watch Jeopardy. Yes, I’m exaggerating, but the point remains, there was a need, and the market filled it. So even assuming Kurtz et. al. are correct, and gay marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage, why does it necessarily follow that this will mean the end of the world as we know it?

Again stipulating Kurtz’ thesis, let’s say heterosexual marriage falls apart in the wake of gay marriage, and men begin leaving women to raise their children alone. A need will then arise again for a marriage-like institution, and just as the market developed marriage in the first place to address the problem, why is it so difficult for opponents of gay marriage to envision a new institution arising to take its place and fill that role? If it happened once, it seems reasonable to believe it will happen again. So what’s the real problem?

Part of it is a lack of courage. Despite their paeans to free markets, many people believe, in their heart of hearts, that when the going gets tough, it’s time to throw markets overboard and get a firm hand on the tiller. But that only accounts for part of the problem.

The real issue is nothing less than today’s real dichotomy: dynamists vs. stasists. Marriage already exists and it works, at least reasonably well. For many people, doing anything that might change the status quo is too frightening to contemplate. So, instead, they oppose gay marriage not necessarily because they’re opposed to gays (although that certainly drives some), but because they’re desperate to keep things as they are right now. They’re comfortable here, and they’ll feel much better if, instead of the future being a haze of unknowns, they can just lock things in right here where they feel comfortable. Sure, there won’t be much progress, but things are good here and now. Why rock the boat?

Human society has managed to stumble along pretty well through trial and error for the past few thousand years. Sure, we’ve screwed some things up, but the end result has been pretty good. It’s time we let ourselves believe in the human race’s ability to overcome new obstacles as they arise, and to encourage ourselves to dive headlong into the unknown future, rather than clinging by our fingernails to what’s comfortable. If the Republican Party truly wants to stand for something more than electability, here’s their chance.

Too bad they almost certainly won’t take it.