The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

In response to a challenge that his arguments for Gay Marriage weren’t genuinely “conservative,” Andrew Sullivan responded:

“It is conservative not to eject people from the fabric and tradition of their own families; it is conservative to support emotional and financial stability which the daily discipline of marriage fosters; it is conservative not to balkanize citizens into groups based on identity; it is conservative to discourage gay men and women from marrying straight men and women on false pretenses and then ending up in divorce; it is conservative to include everyone into the social institutions that stabilize society; it is conservative to promote mutual responsibility and care-giving to avoid too much dependence on government; it is conservative not to trample states rights and amend the federal constitution when such things are grotesquely unnecessary; it is conservative to adjust to social change by adapting existing institutions, like civil marriage, than inventing totally new and untested ones, like civil unions.”

That is a pretty good compilation of “conservative” arguments in favor of Gay marriage (if you want to read a comprehensive, tour de force, conservative argument in favor of gay marriage, pick up Jonathan Rauch’s book Gay Marriage). But what fascinates me about Sullivan’s arguments is the typical conservative Christian response.

They completely ignore them.

Christian conservatives don’t disagree with any of these statements, or the policy goals cited within them. In any other context, Christian conservatives would find these statements to be uncontroversial expressions of conservative concern. They would support and encourage policies that achieved these goals.

But when Christian conservatives are confronted with these types of arguments in favor of gay marriage, or the even better arguments developed by Rauch, my experience is that they offer no response at all. They continue to oppose gay marriage, but offer no explanation as to why these traditionally conservative concerns don’t persuade them. They simply persist in their opposition.

This tells me that these Christian conservatives are Christians first, and conservatives second – a point Sullivan made in the article. They don’t care about good public policy nearly as much as they care that their religious convictions are reflected in the law. In fact, they want their convictions to be reflected in the law, even when they are confronted with sound arguments that it is not good public policy.

That’s something.

But I’ll go further. I’m convinced that Christians are less concerned about the health of marriage, than they are about denying the institution to Gays. This point was driven home to me in a recent discussion I had regarding the Hawaii Civil Unions Bill – a bill that our Governor recently vetoed. One of the reasons my discussion partner offered for opposing the bill was that it did not limit Civil Unions to same sex couples – opposite sex couples could also elect to become “civilly unified.” My partner (correctly) worried that extending this option to straight people would weaken the institution of marriage, which is thought to be a solemn “covenant.” He thought, again correctly, that when offered the opportunity to select an alternative legal arrangement that is more like a “contract,” but which provides the same legal benefits and rights as “marriage,” many people would opt for civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

I’m not sure why our legislature chose to allow same sex couples the civil union option. Perhaps it was necessary to get the votes to pass the bill. Perhaps the legislators were concerned that a law that reserved the revered institution of “marriage” for opposite sex couples, while providing the less prestigious though legally equivalent “civil unions” to gays, violated the State and Federal Equal Protection clauses - that was the reason cited by the Iowa and California Supreme Courts when they struck down their state’s civil union statutes and extended marriage rights to gays. But I do know that allowing opposite sex couples the opportunity to enter an alternative to “till death do us part” marriage, weakens the institution in precisely the way my discussion partner described.

But by making this argument, my discussion partner revealed that he understood a key issue very well. He understood that alternatives to marriage are the greatest threats to the institution. My friend also understood that the key social reality driving the proliferation of these alternatives was the exclusion of gays from marriage. He further understood that the only way to undermine the proliferation of these alternatives, and to thus protect the institution of marriage from its greatest threat, was to make “till death to us part marriage” the only option – for everyone.

But even understanding this, my friend would not budge on extending marriage rights to gays. And this proved that he was willing to weaken the institution of marriage to keep gays out. I suspect that lots of other Christians would bite this same bullet if they had to.

Now that’s really something.

Joe H.