A Dialogue on Gay Marriage, Part I

Recently, a friend, who is also a reader of the blog, had a dinner conversation with me about gay marriage. What follows is our subsequent email exchange concerning that topic. I had expressed my concern about changing the definition of a (the?) fundamental institution of society. I indicated that I did not feel people were thinking of all the possible consequences. I also expressed my concern about the way the left uses language and changes the meanings of terms to suit their politically correct purposes. As I have noted previously, "gay marriage" has since become "marriage equality." "Abortion," as we know, is "a woman's right to choose." I said it made me uneasy to change the meaning of words; as in "1984" when the government said "War is Peace."

I was not arguing on behalf of polygamy because I believe in it. Rather, I was using it as a tool to highlight what I felt were inconsistencies in the reader's argument. Ultimately, the reader acknowledged the inconsistency, but, as noted in my 1/18/13 blog post, logic and consistency are not big issues for the left. In any event, it is easy to pick up on where the arguments left off at the dinner and where the email exchange continued from there. Finally, I have broken up the dialogue into two different posts, as Part II delves into other subjects, based upon a discussion of the issues of logic and consistency.

The Truth-Uncensored (TU): If the government has no business in marriage, can I safely assume you are okay with polygamy? It is a serious question. Why do you or the government get to define marriage as only being between two people? What if 3, 4, or 5 or more people love each other and want to make a commitment? How does it hurt anyone else? What's it the government's business?

Reader (R): You're right in terms of logic but the big and crucial difference is there is no political constituency for polygamy whereas there is for gay marriage. It is the politics that is driving the issue and I just don't see the equivalence between gay marriage and polygamy or even more taboo scenarios (e.g. beastiality, incest, etc.) that are sometimes brought up in the slippery slope argument. I think conservatives have every right to be against gay marriage and speak out against it and vote against it. I just think it's not a winning issue and I personally don't feel it is so offensive or detrimental an issue to warrant the kind of political capital that is being spent on this issue in light of the apparent changing political climate, and increasing acceptance of the idea of the fairness of allowing gay marriage. Regarding polygamy, there's virtually no constituency, no movement, and no foreseeable effort on the horizon to promote it. The gay marriage issue has political wind at its back, whereas it is hard to imagine polygamy ever having the same. Not a perfect answer but I think it lays out some of the issues that I see.

TU: There are a much smaller number of people that would want polygamy. But so what? Gays are a very small minority compared to heterosexuals. I used all the arguments you used to support gay marriage to argue for polygamy. Now, you are saying it comes down to politics. I know you don't believe "equal rights" should be based upon politics. So please tell me YOUR opinion on polygamy, and answer the questions I asked. And your bottom line: thumbs up or down on polygamy?

R: I don't think polygamy is marriage. I also think the states will decide the gay marriage issue which makes it a political issue in the broadest sense. You are right that eventually other issues like polygamy will be tested in the courts...The issue seems to me to be that conservatives want the federal government to define marriage and block states from allowing it. I don't see states or movements promoting polygamy. So, no, I don't think polygamy is in the same category. If a court rules in favor of polygamy as marriage then that would be a new factor.

TU: First, a correction. It was always up to the States. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Finally, it is the left/gays who want the Federal courts to overturn all state laws banning gay marriage on Constitutional grounds. So now that we are clear on who wants a Federal decision, you have another problem: "I don't think polygamy is marriage." Well, men did have multiple legal wives in various western states for a number of years. And, who are you to define marriage as being limited to two people - you are being inconsistent. I'm not allowed to define marriage but you are.

R: You are right when it comes to consistency. Yes, you have a right to define marriage. I believe, however, that it is a losing issue in the face of gradual change in public opinion. The reason public opinion is changing (in addition to media opinion) is the increasing belief that this is not a terrible thing and not a line in the sand issue. It is a change that an increasing majority (especially young people) can either support or live with. I am no gay marriage activist. I would just as soon they would not make the fuss and be okay with civil unions. There are more important issues. But I don't see this as a bad thing, and I think it does not rise to the level of moral imperative to preserve the definition of marriage. I think the idea and institution of marriage can evolve and is not one of those things that is so sacred and elemental as to be untouchable. I don't see the great harm in modifying or broadening marriage per se.

TU: As you have said you don't believe polygamy is within the definition of marriage, the question is: WHY? Again, you already said that marriage was a right. Therefore, a "right" should not be based upon whether polygamists have the political winds at their backs. So, WHY do you believe polygamy should not be considered within the definition of marriage?

R: I don't think marriage is a right. I think it is a consensus issue. I don't think it is one of those things that cannot evolve. That it is so sacred as to be untouchable. I think that opinion is generally moving in the direction of looking at marriage as being able to encompass gay marriage. I respect the other opinion...I think the analogy with Judaism is somewhat relevant. There are many mitzvot (commandments) in Judaism that you and I and most Jews have not seen as absolute or untouchable. I believe that marriage is something like that. It promotes the idea of two people committing to one another. It lessens the number of single family homes. It takes away a certain amount of stigma. The fact that I don't think polygamy is in the same category means I don't see marriage as a right so much as a consensus idea or convention...I also think that it shouldn't be decided solely in the courts...I think a gay marriage initiative today might fare better than it did a few years ago. So I guess I come down on the side of allowing the people to decide. So, no, I don't think marriage is a right.

TU: I don't think that you have answered my question: why doesn't polygamy fit within the definition of marriage? The reason I ask is this - I don't believe that you are able to give an explanation that is any different from the reasons I gave against gay marriage. So, if marriage is not a "right," what's the harm in providing for "civil unions" other than some gay people will be offended? And what about committed heterosexual couples who never marry? Should they get any of the tax advantages, etc. of married people?

R: I think the difference between polygamy and gay marriage remains the commitment and union of two people. That is something that I can accommodate to, given the increasingly slim but growing majority of people. With polygamy it's just different. Sorry. I know it's an unsatisfying answer.

TU: Actually, it's a very satisfying answer. You are defining marriage as being a union between two people. And you are LIMITING it to only two people. I define marriage as between a man and a woman. No different than you in that you have made your own definition and limitations. So have I.

R: At this point I would not say that other than two should be marriage. But (polygamy) as marriage - I just don't see it. I wouldn't vote for it. But I could see it becoming acceptable. I wouldn't outlaw it either. Just seems like it will be on the fringes for the foreseeable future.

TU: My point in our give and take was to make you have to acknowledge the inconsistency in your positions. I am not allowed to define marriage as being between a man and a woman without being called a bigot (by most of the left and the mainstream media). You, however, are allowed to define marriage as being limited to two people. Please read my blog post of 1/18/13 - "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats are Driven by Issues." Then tell me which group you fit into.

R: I grant you the consistency issue, but I still think it's not a matter of consistency. It's a matter of public policy reflecting gradual change in the body politic and cultural norms. I still think the issue is not primarily a legal definition issue. I do see the futility now of looking at it as an equal protection issue because that does certainly open up a can of worms legally. Your viewpoint is legitimate and reasonable, I just don't agree. And I don't think the key is having to be consistent across issues but rather to pick the important issues.

TU: You said marriage is a "consensus" issue. I don't think you really mean that. When the "consensus" was that blacks and whites could not intermarry, I know that neither one of us would ever find that acceptable, notwithstanding that there was a "consensus" at the time. Again, see my earlier post of 1/18/13. Liberals are not big on consistency. That is because they let "issues" trump their values.

R: The primary vehicle for ultimately establishing public policy is voting. Is that not "consensus" in its essence? The Constitution and courts are there, among other reasons, to balance majority tyranny and protect individual rights. But the policies of the government reflect consensus among the people.