In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, several articles were published by Politico portraying the future of cultural and social policy debates. Some are rather astounding, in that they proved – on the very day that same-sex marriage was made the law of the land – that conservative concern about the impacts of same-sex marriage are 100 percent correct. Below is a summary of where the unbalanced progressive vision for “equality” promises to take us next.
This article highlights how all of the fundamental issues raised in support of same-sex marriage logically call for legalization of polygamy as well. For the conservative and reasonable non-conservatives, the author’s argument also highlights the incoherence of progressive support for same-sex marriage and opposition toward plural marriage:
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
The left’s willingness to embrace tactics and arguments they decry as hateful, bigoted and intolerant if used by conservatives has always been a curious, but enlightening, insight into the ideological mindset of a progressive. From this ideological viewpoint, you are an intolerant bigot if you deny to a loving homosexual relationship the social recognition and benefits that marriage affords. But if progressives see that person as a bigot, how do they see themselves when they then deny the dignity and recognition of marriage to loving polyamorous relationships? As rational and intelligent human beings, in theory they should recognize the “intolerance” and “hate,” as they define those terms, underlying such a position. And yet, they embrace them anyway for the sake of ideology and politics. The impact that justifying such an irrational and hypocritical stance must have on the mind and the soul is unnerving.
This article makes the argument that same-sex marriages are superior to man-woman marriages because men and women are fundamentally different, and by definition those differences do not exist in a same-sex relationship. This leads, the author contends, to superior communication and conflict-resolution capacity, and to benefits in equality of gender roles and empathy.
In other words, the article is contending that the decades-long consensus of social science that marriage between men and women is the best relationship for everyone involved (especially any children that result) is rubbish. Rather, in the ideology of the progressive, we ought to view the marital relationship between two men and two women as the social ideal. And the inconvenience presented by the last half-century or so of social science research? Just ignore it.
The most intriguing part of this article is its admission that “[a]s trite and overdone as the cliché ‘men are from Mars and women are from Venus’ may be, it does contain a grain of truth: Men and women are fundamentally different in certain ways. …” It’s intriguing because the human reality of gender differences is a foundation of the conservative argument that the best marriage policy for society is one based on the authentic definition of marriage: a relationship between a man and a woman that is naturally inclined toward the bearing and rearing of children.
These gender differences create the well of potential benefits that marriage offers to husbands, wives, the children their relationship conceives, and the community and society around them. On the other hand, the progressive legal argument for same-sex marriage relied heavily on a total lack of difference between men and women to argue that same-sex marriage is a matter of equality. To start denying that fundamental assumption on the very day that it is declared to be a matter of fundamental constitutional rights is both ironic and breathtakingly incoherent.
Perhaps feeling more secure in their legal victory, progressives are more comfortable acknowledging the practical realities of human nature and existence that they denied so long because they are at odds with their ideology and political agenda. Whatever the case, it is rather amazing to see them embracing those points now that they can serve a purpose for their political agenda.
These articles make clear that – despite the hopes of some politicians to avoid the difficulties that sexual politics creates for them in things like elections – liberal progressives will continue to push their ideology as they continue to attack the social realities, institutions, and policies that do not conform with their articles of political faith.
Photo credit: Fæ via Wikimedia Commons