Yes, I don’t write about politics much these days. Part of it is increased apathy toward the political process (to which someone might respond “then do something about it!”), part of it is general weariness with reading about politicals–in fact, I have purged my bookmarks of most of the politically-minded blogs I once read. These days, my “political” reading is generally the smart folks blogging at The Atlantic, and the other other smart folks at the American Scene. And it is at the American Scene that Reihan Salam pens his defence of same-sex marriage rights. Salam quotes Peter Berkowitz:

And yet opponents of same-sex marriage must reckon with the fact that over the past 40 years the very meaning of marriage has undergone a substantial change. The sexual and cultural revolutions of the 1960s have pushed the bearing and rearing of children from the core of marriage’s social meaning. Ask twentysomethings and thirtysomethings what they hope for from marriage. They will, of course, tell you that they want love and that they definitely want companionship — indeed, that they expect their spouse to be their best friend. And obviously they want to share the pleasures of sex. Then ask them about children. Many will pause and say well, yes, certainly, they are thinking about children, and eventually, somewhere down the line, they expect to have one or two. But children, once at the center of marriage, have now become negotiable, and what used to be negotiable — love, companionship, sex — has moved to the center. Under these circumstances, legal recognition of same-sex marriage will not represent a change in the meaning of a venerable social institution through law, but rather an adaptation of law to a profound change in social meaning.

(Emphasis is Salam’s)

I agree. Social conservatives, as Salam points out, have every right to lash out against these cultural shifts (it is the very nature of conservatism to be reactionary about these things). And I agree with Salam’s assessment of what he sees as a core problem with the institution of marriage:

Unlike Andrew, I tend to think the legalization of same-sex marriage will have a pretty limited impact on the culture. The transformative impact he describes has more to do with child-rearing, which a large minority of same-sex couples has enthusiastically embraced. Relatedly, I think the fact that child-rearing is no longer at the center of marriage among non-gays is the main reason marriage has become a radically different and in some respects very vulnerable institution. To use Berkowitz’s framework, love, companionship, and sex are and always will be “negotiable.” So I tend to think both sides of the debate advance arguments that are pretty unconvincing, but that’s neither here nor there.

Viewed this way, the problems the institution faces at this point in history will not exactly be solved by putting a marriage amendment on the books. In fact, nothing short of legislating child-rearing would or erasing no-fault divorce will solve the problem. In fact, I would go a step further and say that the political process is quite hamstrung when trying to deal with the shifts in the cultural institution.

Salam sums things up for me nicely:

I’m thus left with a position that is easy to caricature and difficult to characterize. As a “brie-eating Harvard-educated God-denier,” I think of myself both as an enthusiastic participant in American life and also as an observer, at a slight tangent. In a quirk of biography, I have close friends who are ardent liberals and ardent conservatives, which could be why I’m un-eager to demonize or even dismiss arguments others consider beyond the pale. Because I don’t think Americans are all that different from, and certainly not superior to, Kazakhs or Poles or Senegalese or Frenchman, I don’t share Andrew’s high expectations. Narrowness and chauvinism and some level of bigotry is to be expected. Given how dramatically and how fast this country has changed in its mores and demographic composition, a subject Andrew addressed in “Goodbye to All That,” I tend to think, “Wow, Americans have handled this remarkably well!” rather than “Goddamnit, prejudice still exists in the hearts of men! Something must be done!” I mean, of course something must be done. One thing that must be done is the steady, decentralized establishment of equal marriage rights. But as 2007 draws to a close, and as my birthday rapidly approaches, I suppose I’m pretty optimistic about our capacity for decency and mutual understanding.

Now, other Christians may stand up and say “but…but…but.” Yes, yes. I am not suggesting that traditionally theologically conservative denominations alter their (biblically-based) views of marriage. But, living as we do in a pluralist society, we (speaking for Christians) should not expect to change hearts through the law (isn’t this point made in the New Testament by both Christ and Paul?). We don’t tolerate “Harvard-educated, brie-eating God-deniers” telling us how to live, so why should we expect them to tolerate the same?

Posted on 28 December 2007