The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Marriage Has Consequences

Text Size

Marriage Has Consequences

By Robert Stacy McCain on 11.21.08 @ 8:51AM

When the subject of same-sex marriage is raised, why does the burden of proof fall on defenders of traditional marriage, rather than on the proponents of change in established custom?

Wednesday, I attended the "Whither Conservatism?" conference sponsored by National Review Institute and Hillsdale College, and was struck by Maggie Gallagher's comments:

"Ideas have consequences," Gallagher said, noting that the essential argument of gay radicals is that "Christianity is a form of bigotry," so that the result of the gay rights agenda will be the elimination of Christian moral arguments from the public square. Gallagher called attention to the August decision in the Benitez case in California, requiring physicians to provide insemination services to lesbians, as an example of the impact of the gay-rights doctrine.

In other words, the same court that requires the state to recognize gay marriage also resorts to the coercion of private physicians. One is reminded of the sign that appeared in a shop window in Berkeley, shortly after that city's government was taken over by radicals in the early 1970s: "That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

The long-term consequences of any particular policy change may be unimagined at the time of the change, but it stands to reason that the more radical the change, the more numerous and disruptive the consequences. Edmund Burke did not prophesy every consequence of the French Revolution, but was wise enough to see that a terrible precedent was being established, and it is only in retrospect that we can trace the straight line from Liberté, égalité, fraternité to the killing fields of Cambodia. As I mused yesterday:

The burden of proof in policy disputes ought always to rest with the advocates of innovation. The Burkean insight is that established law and social custom are presumed legitimate, and that revolutionaries who would overthrow the established order must first demonstrate (a) the necessity of the change to remedy existing evil and (b) some reasonable assurance that the new order would be a genuine improvement on that order which is to be destroyed. (Or, to quote Lord Acton: "Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.")

Conservatives ought not let themselves be intimidated into retreat or cowed into silence by radicals who angrily demand a justification for the preservation of the established order -- justifications that the radicals will never accept.

View all comments (5) | Leave a comment

J David| 11.21.08 @ 9:31AM

To do as the last paragraph suggests(or not do)words like "sin", and "deviance", among other descriptives, must again be used...but THEY WILL NOT BE, for those claiming to lead *conservatism* do not see themselves as "in a war', and thus have lost already.

Thomas| 11.21.08 @ 11:20AM

Many so-called conservatives in government fail to understand, or do not have the backbone to oppose, what liberal forces are doing in this country, which is simply the use of legislation and judicial fiat to force people to do things. This was not the aim of the founding fathers of our nation. For them, laws were meant to prohibit actions, not to compel actions. Somewhere, this nation lost its way. It is no longer drifting toward totalitarianism, but is in a headlong rush to get there.

Trurl| 11.21.08 @ 12:37PM

We shouldn't be talking about instituting some kind of "gay marriage" anyway- we should be talking about eliminating all marriage as a legal institution. What's it for? Tax and social benefits? Why should any two people get preferential treatment for living together that a single person doesn't? Financial incentive to have children? If that's the goal, just give tax breaks to any two people that conceive a child. SoCons rejoice, it's going to tend to be a man and a woman. Marriage can continue as a union observed by religions, based on whatever principles and beliefs that religion holds. If you're gay and want God to recognize your union, try the Episcopalians. Baptists, not so much. As for Alimony, wills and other types of nuptial agreements, any two people (hell, or more) that want to live under one roof and draw up such legal contracts between them are welcome to do so.

There, problem solved. Equality and sanity for all. You're welcome. *g*

Bob| 11.21.08 @ 3:12PM

The coercion of physicians -- that's a hoot! If a physician doesn't want to treat a black man married to a white woman, he shouldn't have to, right? If a physician doesn't want to treat a Muslim, he shouldn't have to, right? Perhaps you should have paid more attention to class and tried to get into Harvard, RSM, so you could argue more effectively.

Should we have "gay marriage"? I believe in a pragmatic view. There are states in which gay marriage is now legal. Let's study whether that helps or hinders those micro-environments. If it makes society better, we should allow it. If not, then you have a societal, not religious, argument to make. After all, you believe that it will hurt society. Let's find out if your assumption is true.

By the way, technically, there is no difference between civil marriage and domestic partnership agreements from a functional perspective. They both have exactly the same result.

WendyG| 11.23.08 @ 10:14AM

We need to hold the line on this without fail. We are being mau-maued on this issue. The gay marriage push is an attempt to mainsteam a lifestyle that is in no way akin to the marriage of a man to a woman.

Result is not the point. But if we want to talk results, what if everyone was gay and got married? No babies, no procreation of the human race. A silly analogy you say....why? Isn't that what the ultimate result would be?

Also, if gay marriage is mainstreamed, next comes teaching it to children as a valid lifestyle. Do you want your kid to be taught from an early age that a gay relationship is the same in every way as a straight one? I shudder to think what this country will look like in 50 years if this abomination is successful. Be gay if you want. I really don't care. I've know gay people my whole life because I work in the arts. But marriage? NO.