NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER

JULY 4, 2004

On Monday, May 17, 2004, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. The very first day indicted two of the most prominent arguments in favor of gay marriage. The "conservative" case that gay marriage would strengthen the overall condition of marriage was completely discredited. And events proved that the federalism argument was almost certainly offered in bad faith by at least some advocates of gay marriage.

The "conservative" case for gay marriage is most commonly associated with Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch. They argue that bringing gay people into the institution of marriage would provide stability for relationships that desparately need it. The desire to maintain respectability would create an incentive for gay men to be less promiscuous and more faithful. Since heterosexual marriage is already plaugued by divorce and infidelity, broadening the institution would gain new adherents to the standards of lifelong love.

Sceptics respond that even long-time gay couples do not define "monogamy" in the same way heterosexual couples do. Gay relationships tend to find ways to accomodate outside sexual activity. For instance, a Canadian study of self-described committed male homosexuals together for more than a year, found that only 25% were completely monogamous. By contrast, over 75 % of married heterosexual men are monogamous. Another study found that most of the self-described committed gay couples had had three to five partners during the previous year. A straight man who had that many partners in a single year would certainly throw his marriage into crisis.

The truth of this difference between gay and straight meanings of "monogamy" became clear on the very first day Massachusetts offered marriage licenses to gay couples. The first couple married in Provincetown proclaimed the concept of forever to be "overrated" and that "it’s possible to love more than one person and have more than one partner."

This statement reflects an attitude that is different in kind from the occasional infidelity of married couples. It is inconceivable that a straight man would proclaim his right to have more than one partner, on his wedding day, with his wife beside him, as they both smiled for the camera.

Let’s hear no more of the "conservative" case for gay marriage.

You remember the federalism argument, of course, even though it is so five minutes ago. That was the claim that the definition of marriage should be handled by the states. If one state wants to experiment, fine. If for some strange, unforeseen reason, the gay marriage experiment goes awry, the other states would learn from the experience.

The first day of gay marriage gave lie to this claim, too, when out of state couples were featured prominently in news accounts of the new law. Provincetown, Massachusetts has been a gay tourist destination for some time. Naturally, the town hall felt no compunction about giving out marriage licenses to gay couples, even those who would certainly not be considered married in their home states.

It would be bad for business, you know, to discriminate against paying customers and tourists. Even after Governor Mitt Romney specifically ordered the towns to enforce the law against performing marriages to out of state couples, Provincetown persisted.

During the second week of gay marriage, California activists let their cat out of the bag. The Williams Project on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, an advocacy group disguised as an academic department at UCLA, produced a study outlining the fiscal benefits to California from redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.

Authors R. Bradley Sears and M.V. Lee Badgett, argue that California ought to jump at the chance to be one of the first states to permit gay marriage, precisely to take advantage of the financial gains from attracting out of state same-sex couples.

In other words, the state of California should make a public policy of luring couples to take vows and receive licenses that will certainly not be recognized as valid in their home state. Perhaps the authors want these couples to return to their home states and demand that their California marriage license be recognized. Or perhaps the authors want California to make a public policy of assisting individuals to break the laws of their own state. Either way, this is certainly the end of the federalism argument. These authors at least, evidently did not take the federalism argument seriously for a moment.

I have no doubt of the sincerity of commentators such as Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, who once seemed to believe that gay marriage in one state could be confined there, and provide a social laboratory. But I can not for the life of me see how anyone can continue to believe that such an experiment is possible. The marriage-deconstruction activists, gay and straight alike, will not allow the experiment to run undisturbed for the thirty years or more that would be required to learn anything useful from it.

Let’s hear no more about federalism as an argument for gay marriage.

The issue is whether we want a national policy of marriage as the sexually exclusive union of a man and a woman, or a national policy of marriage as the union of any combination of consenting adults with no particular expectation of sexual fidelity. No serious person can believe any longer that a state-by-state policy is possible, or that homosexual activists hold the same ideal of "marriage" as everyone else.