Ross Douthat’s follow-ups to his column on gay marriage are, I think, starting to make his argument look worse, not better. His latest post quotes a very strange passage by Eve Tushnet, effectively arguing that if marriage does not remain specifically about heterosexuals, then the institution cannot be used to rein in destructive behavior — which, by Tushnet’s reasoning, seems to primarily involve premarital sex, which raises the question of what you consider “destructive.” But setting that aside, this is the part I really don’t get:
[Marriage] arises to manage not only procreation, but also the social and biological differences between men and women prior to reproduction. So, that said, if you have a unisex model of marriage, which is what gay marriage requires, you are no longer able to talk about marriage as regulating heterosexuality…
Here’s what Tushnet gets wrong: Marriage actually doesn’t regulate the biological differences between men and women; it regulates the sexual forces that result from those biological differences. But those sexual forces, and the challenges they bring, are the same for homosexual couples as they are for heterosexuals: Do I sleep with this person on a first date? Do I sleep with one person while “seeing” another person? Is it time to date exclusively? The sex is great, but can we actually build a long-lasting relationship? Will they fit in with my friends? Will my family accept them? (Those last two are certainly more difficult for homosexuals.)
So Adam’s post, which Douthat brings up as a kick-off to his argument, is still correct. Outside of the biological inability to have children, homosexual relationships function just like heterosexual relationships — so marriage should map onto both kinds of relationship equally well. Which then bleeds into the kind of small-c conservative arguments in favor of gay marriage made by Andrew Sullivan: Namely, that if you’re concerned with regulating behaviors like premarital sex, fidelity, and so forth, then the logical thing to do is bring homosexuals under the marriage umbrella. Not exclude them from it.
Douthat hints at a counter-argument to this when he suggests that, because heterosexuals can biologically procreate, then “both state and society have a stronger interest in the mating rituals of heterosexuals than in those of gays and lesbians.” Well, first off, as Judge Walker’s opinion noted, the state has already determined that procreation does not factor into marriage as a legal institution — after all, we don’t inquire into a heterosexual couple’s ability to procreate, or whether they’re suited as people for raising kids — which is one of the primary reasons excluding homosexuals from marriage is constitutionally untenable.
But beyond that, consider what Douthat’s saying here. He’s just made the argument that we human beings need marriage to structure and give guidance to our sexual desires. Because we’re often weak creatures, we let those desires get out of control and do all sorts of personal and social damage. In many ways, it’s a profoundly humane argument — marriage helps us be our best selves by conquering demons we can’t conquer on our own. (I’m not sure I fully agree with this, mind you, but I sympathize.) So, by Douthat’s own lights, he’s arguing that culturally and legally distinguishing heterosexuality is so important that it’s worth leaving homosexuals to thrash about in a kind of institution-less sexual netherworld at the fringes of society. And I’m supposed to interpret this as the non-bigoted argument against gay marriage?
— Jeff Spross