In today's New York Times, their resident "intellectual" conservative, Ross Douthat, (as opposed to their resident "populist" conservative, David Brooks), serves up a healthy portion of conservative fantasy and facile sophistry about both straight and gay marriage.
After acknowledging that the modern American tradition of marriage is not, nor has it ever been, universal (contrary to conservative claims) or even widely followed or accepted, he writes that heterosexual marriage is:
"…a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.
This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings -- a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest -- as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos."
Wow, Douthat sure paints the rosiest possible picture of heterosexual marriage! He describes a lifestyle that spans decades of life and has only the most positive of outcomes (why he presumes that only two "sexually different" human beings can achieve this ideal is never stated). This is typical of conservatives: always claiming to be hard-headed realists, they base their ideology on the most unctuous fantasies of the best possible descriptions of human behavior that are, primarily, the most laudatory of their own proclivities. Then they paint these self-serving fantasies as the only "moral" description of "real life."
Nice work, if you can get it.
But I agree, to a point: If any couple lived such a perfect life, always loving each other, always raising their kids with ideal values, staying faithfully committed in love for their entire lives and, presumably, staying married until death did they part, they would be admirable and should be praised by the community. Unfortunately for hard-headed conservative realists, reality is seldom as pretty or Disney-esque as their fantasy lives. Real people get divorced, fall out of love, raise kids with lousy values, abuse their kids in all sorts of ways, cheat on or otherwise abuse their spouses, and do all the other relationship-damaging, family-damaging things to which human frailty and foolishness are wont to give rise. None of these behaviors is any more universal than modern American marriage, nor are they in any way admirable, but they are a more reliable description of real life than conservative fantasies of the ideal heterosexual marriage. What's more, were a gay couple to live their lives according to the Douthat-described ideal, they would be as equally admirable as the heterosexual couple.
What Douthat is asking us to do is honor heterosexual marriage in potentia, rather than as it actually is. He is suggesting that the casino give you your winnings before you even place your first bet. And he presumes that gays can not, for reasons unstated, achieve an equally admirable ideal and should not, therefore, enjoy equal opportunity to participate. Gays will not only not be allowed to win, they should not even get a seat at the table to try. What amazes me is that conservatives, blinded by their overweening self-regard and bigotry, cannot see the basic unfairness of their position.
But I have a solution! Let's presume that Douthat is right: That straight couples who live as he describes are deserving of social approbation and reward. Let's set up a system in which any couple who remains virgin until marriage, remains married their entire lives, never cheats on their spouse or has any form of sexual life with anyone or thing other than their spouse, has children who grow up to be honorable, well-adjusted people (and live by the same ideals as their parents), and who live their lives as the type of married social paragons that Douthat describes will, on their fiftieth wedding anniversary, be given a prize of one-million dollars, tax free. Of course they will be required to remain happily married for the rest of their lives to keep the money, and will have to prove their continuing love, fidelity, pre-marriage virginity, and probity in a court of law where anyone can speak up and remind them of their flaws, and the community will have to vote on whether they really did live the life they are to claiming to have lived. But it's one way to reward the kinds of couples that Douthat thinks he is defending when he insults gay people and gay marriage.
But in order to create this system, we must allow gays to marry and raise children if they so choose. That's the deal: Heteros get the chance to win a million bucks, gays get to marry legally and call it marriage with all the legal, social and personal benefits and flaws. How about it Ross? Are you willing to put your money (or rather, America's tax money) where your mouth is?
And the best part about this is that the likelihood of any couple ever winning the prize is so slight it will have no effect on the economy.
Update 1:
As suggested below, here's a link to the online article. (thx Oil Guy)
http://www.nytimes.com/...