Same-Sex Marriage: A Case for “Yes”

First published on The Conversation, 11 September 2017.

[Note: This piece is specifically about the current process in Australia. It does, however, raise more general issues about the legitimacy and political advisability of same-sex marriage. It explains fairly concisely why I support the idea while retaining some underlying doubts about the institution of marriage itself. Read on…]

In its decision last week, the High Court of Australia cleared the way for a voluntary survey of the electorate to gauge community support for same-sex marriage. I don’t defend this idea: a voluntary survey is an unreliable instrument at best, and in any event providing for same-sex marriage is an issue that could be settled by an ordinary parliamentary vote without unusual steps such as a plebiscite or a national survey.

Still, the survey will go ahead whether I prefer it to or not. It will ask us whether we support same-sex marriage. I’ll reply “Yes” and I urge others to do the same.

This need not be an issue that divides (small-l) liberals like me and realistic conservatives. Conservatism has its place. It stands as a barrier to revolutionary, perhaps irresponsible, change. Liberalism acts as a needed social force pushing back against restrictions of individual liberty. Conservatives and liberals don’t have to disagree on every single issue.

In this case, continued denial of same-sex marriage would be illiberal, but it also goes against the best instincts of conservatives. Admittedly, some conservatives will never accept same-sex marriage because they wish to impose a traditional Christian moral code on the wider community. Note, however, that this is more reactionary and theocratic than merely conservative.

Conservatives who are understandably wary of sudden, irresponsible change can acknowledge that same-sex marriage’s time has come. Many, I think, are already coming to that view and I hope they’ll continue to speak up.

Same-sex marriage is no longer a revolutionary idea or even a novelty. Many other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and even the staunchly Catholic nation of Ireland, have increasingly provided for same-sex marriage, and Australia has become an outlier among Western liberal democracies. The experience in other countries provides ample evidence that extending marriage to same-sex couples is not an irresponsible step. It can be workable and need not harm the social fabric.

More fundamentally, same-sex marriage makes sense because marriage itself has changed over the past two hundred years – and especially over the past fifty years or so – along with its social meaning.

Times do change. During the 1960s and 1970s – the era of the Sexual Revolution and the phase of modern feminism associated with the Women’s Liberation Movement – genuinely revolutionary ideas about sex marriage were in vogue. The institution of marriage was subjected to fundamental criticism, and, to be frank, it was largely deserved.

Marriage, as it was understood and practised in European Christendom and its colonial offshoots, had a dubious history. It functioned as a form of social, and especially sexual, control. In particular, it constricted the sexuality of women. More generally, unreformed marriage was a blatantly patriarchal institution. Writing in the 1860s, John Stuart Mill identified the marriage bond as a form of slavery for women. He was not far wrong.

To play its role, marriage operated as licence for sexual experience, which was otherwise forbidden by morality if not by law. Standards of chastity were, of course, applied far more harshly to women than to men. Among the wealthier classes, marriage also operated as a tool for economic ends such as estate planning. From the viewpoint of sixties-and-seventies radicals, there was much about marriage that was far from romantic and did not deserve to be sentimentalised. Like Mill a century earlier, they had point.

Yet, marriage had already changed and softened from what it once had been. There was a long process through the 1800s and the first half of the twentieth century that improved the legal situation of women and altered the ideal of marriage far more toward one of companionship between equals. Under a range of social pressures, marriage has continued in that direction.

Marriage has become a kinder and far more flexible concept than it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, or even the 1960s. This came about in the context of a grand social compromise, not necessarily imagined by anybody in advance, where marriage’s importance was largely preserved even as its character and ground rules changed. The current ideal of marriage in Western democracies is an equal union between two companions, involving love and intimacy. Often, it even lives up to that ideal.

Same-sex marriage became increasingly more thinkable during the 1980s and thereafter until the idea is not at all revolutionary. The impetus came, in large part, from the 1981 AIDS crisis, but the idea of marriage for same-sex couples was able to gain traction because marriage itself had been changing in an accommodating way. Broadening the scope of marriage to include same-sex couples is now a coherent and attractive proposition. Indeed, younger people who were born after the AIDS crisis and have grown up with the contemporary ideal of marriage find the exclusion of same-sex couples incomprehensible.

The changing ideal of marriage has been very significant, but it happened sufficiently gradually for Western societies to adapt around it. Provision by Australian law for same-sex marriages will give effect to a concept of marriage that meets contemporary social reality and keeps the institution relevant. Far from undermining marriage as a cherished social institution, same-sex marriage will tend to strengthen it. It will show marriage as still socially relevant, as adaptable to the needs and values of 21st-century Australians.

At the same time, the trend in Western countries toward recognition of same-sex marriage is not entirely a social defeat for conservatives. I urge them – those who have not already done so – to embrace the idea as one they can live with and even take some comfort from.

Marriage continues to maintain social prestige, and it retains deep emotional significance for most citizens, including many gay men and lesbians. Once they shed their aversion to homosexuality itself – as they increasingly have – realistic conservatives can take comfort that marriage is something that so many gay men and lesbians actually want.

Our choice as voters over the coming months is to accept a genuinely modern ideal of marriage – and thus base policy upon it – or to affirm a much older concept of marriage that younger people find irrelevant and has relatively little community support. The latter would bring marriage into disrepute.

More and more conservatives have grasped that the continuing importance of marriage is in many ways a victory for their viewpoint, and that there are other issues around which they can continue to define themselves. At this point, resistance to the idea of same-sex marriage has become somewhat absurd, even by the lights of these clued-up conservatives.

Marriage itself has changed, along with its social meaning. It’s time to accept that not-so-harsh reality, whatever our views might be on other political issues. The trend in Western countries toward recognition of same-sex marriage is not entirely a social defeat for conservatives, and I urge them, in particular, to embrace what is happening. Almost all Australians, liberal-minded or realistically conservative, now have good reason to vote “Yes”.
–Russell Blackford, University of Newcastle, NSW

[My Amazon author page.]

  1. Mary had a little lamb
    She also had a duck
    She put them on the mantelpiece
    To see if they would…form an interspecies relationship.

    Purlease. This is ‘social justice’ politics masquerading as philosophy.

    A ‘Christian’ marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of mutual support and childbearing is not on offer for same sex couples who cannot conceive children.

    Which is why we had ‘civil partnerships’ to afford similar legal status.

    What the religious and conservative object to, is calling it ‘marriage’ because that term is reserved for a heterosexual relationship.

    I can remember when ‘gay’ meant happy and care-free as well. The complete opposite of what it means now, mainly miserable.

    The whole thing is magic thinking. In the UK the Blair government engaged in an extraordinary piece of sophistry.

    Graduates, they discovered, warrant about 50% salary more than non graduates. Ergo, they reasoned, giving BS degrees to anybody capable of absorbing another 3 years of political indoctrination, would be worth paying for, so 50% of all young people are now students at ‘Uni’ incurring massive debts, but there are lots of jobs for left-wing teechers to teach about soshul just-is.

    The magic thinking was of course in the implicit proposition that it was the piece of paper – the degree – that conferred the qualities that had hitherto made graduates worth employing at substantial premiums. And that the market for smart people was unlimited.

    Today the smart thing is not to go to ‘Uni’ at all.

    Gay marriage?

    Well you can have one, and you can call it that, but it is and will always be what it is, and that is not the same thing as a marriage between a heterosexual couple – especially one with a family.

    And the small minority of homosexuals who want it, want it in order to be part of a social setup they can never actually be part of, any more than paying tens of thousands for a ‘degree’ will make you happy and rich and intelligent.

    It is as absurd as me, unmarried and childless, wanting to be part of a circle of young fathers and mothers and joining the PTA.

    Gay people have always lived together, and no one has batted an eyelid since the 60s.

    Why suddenly do they want to ape an inglorious institution that is really there for the good of society as a whole, being the least worst of all the alternatives, but is really not that brilliant for people involved in it, and is meaningless for homosexuals?

    And why is it that all the homosexuals I know, really are not in the slightest bit interested in it either.

    Who is it for?

    Is it simply more ‘in your face I’m progressive and you’re reactionary if I don’t get what I want’ dismantling of social conventions simply for the sake of dismantling something?

    Trotskyists want to smash society in the fond and naïve hope that something better will emerge.

    The LBGT activists want to smash society so they can get a place in it!

    They want acceptance in a social institution that by definition excludes them. It can’t be done.

    About as weird as emigrating from a 3rd world country to the West ‘because its healthier’ and then crapping in the street ‘because that’s my culture’.

    In the end its all just about messing with people’s heads, putting in ideas that you hope they will find upsetting, so you can marginalize them by trumpeting ‘soshul just-is’ at them and calling them ****ophobes.

    This is the social politics of Kipling’s Bandar Log, and it’s all very well, to have wonderful Progressive Ideas and start teaching people how to think in useless categories, but perhaps there is a reason why societies have evolved particular mores. Perhaps that’s how they survived.

    In traditional terms Gay Marriage is a contradiction in terms, and calling a gay couple married won’t generate the same emotional narrative as a heterosexual marriage will. Any more than the experience of a gender swapper is the same as if you have been born the opposite set of chromosomes to start with.

    Much as I might want to be it, I can never be a woman. Or gay, or black, or Asian, or red headed or a Formula One driver. And having a piece of paper that says I am is not the answer I personally am seeking.

    If you want to put it on the statute books and give someone a piece of paper saying they are, ok, but dont be surprised if it all turns out not to have solved a single ‘social problem’, whatsoever.

  2. mineral waters: 72 natural springs have been identified,cheap pandora jewelry,cheap pandora bracelets. Stroll a shady nature trail with an empty bottle to fill up at a remote pump,cheap pandora bracelets for sale; each spring is said to have a different mineral content and a different taste,cheap pandora earrings,cheap pandora jewelry. Test your palate at one of the local vineyards’ cellar doors,cheap pandora bracelets,cheap pandora charms for sale. ● Trip plan: Daylesford is a 90-mi

  3. your hotel room thermostat is playing on YOU Banks charging up to £180 fees on £100 borrowing,cheap pandora rings,cheap pandora charms for sale, Which? finds L’Oreal to sell The Body Shop for £852m 10 years after buying it WATCH: Horrifying moment tourist is bitten by SHARK while trying to take a selfie Fifty Shades Darker updates: Sexy sequel facing BIG box office trouble FIFA 17 TOTW 21: Man Utd and Chelsea stars join Gabriel Jesus after Winter Upgrades update Sex NEWS:

  4. agreed to a date,cheap pandora jewelry,cheap pandora jewelry for sale, claims friend Pre-inquest review into five friends who died at Camber Sands on same day Take Me Out couple to open bridal shop together after falling in love on the show Brexit bashing Mark Carney to step down as Bank of England Governor AFTER EU negotiations Terrifying CCTV shows toddler caught up in bloody knife attack inside Supersaver store Male contraceptive: Dr Chris Steele explains how male birth control works Samsung

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>