There isn't a chance in the world that anyone reading this site doesn't also check Samizdata frequently, but for those who haven't seen it, there's a great post up about what has become one of my least favorite subjects. While I'm watching Columbo and trying to decide whether lunch will be broiled chicken with way too much pan gravy or chicken paprikash (sp.? I've only heard my Polish-American great aunts say it) with way too much sour cream, I'll add just a few comments to what David Carr wrote.

He's talking about British, not American, law; but I think that what he says about the relationships among custom, law, and behavior applies States-side, also. In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes the gay marriage proponents have made is insisting on limiting to homosexual couples the extensions of benefits. Domestic partner benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the use of enduring power of attorney are certainly issues that affect our relationships; however, we aren't the only unmarried people who may need to think about them. If two relatives or lifelong friends want to take responsibility for each other's welfare and are willing to do so officially and exclusively...well, why shouldn't they be able to, using much the same argument we use in favor of benefits for gays? Some people have crazy next-of-kin whom they can't trust when wide awake, much less while comatose. Others have simply formed bonds in their adult lives with people who would more respect their wishes than their blood relatives. As long as the content of the contract is clear, why not push to bundle these things into the kind of civil union in which who sleeps in which bed isn't an issue?

When this point is raised by critics, those arguing for gay marriage say that if anyone and everyone can randomly assign a domestic partner at will, things will get so chaotic that no one will be able to keep track of who gets what (more chaotic than our current era of no-fault divorce and no-father childrearing?). Or they bring up love and commitment, which I hadn't been aware was impossible between distant cousins sharing a non-romantic household.

I understand the emotional issue here. When people ask why gay couples should qualify for benefits that roommates don't, many of them--not all, but many--are not-so-slyly taking the opportunity to dismiss our relationships as meaningless. That's nasty, and it hurts, but it doesn't mean they don't have a policy point.

Or a point about human nature. I believe that most of those on our team sincerely don't want to force people to approve of our relationships in the sense of going out of their way to be congratulatory--that they just don't want us to be prevented from providing for each other when we most need it. But forcing people to bracket together recognition of, say, hospital visitation rights and gay partnerships moves the issue into muddy territory in which even good-hearted people will feel as if they're being shaken down for sympathy. That's neither a logical nor emotionally astute way to get people on your side.

Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty has posted a lengthy response to Maggie Gallagher's guest posts at the Volokh Conspiracy on gay marriage (via Gay Orbit). Kuznicki's commentary is worth reading in full, especially if you don't want to have to slog through all the comments at the Volokh Conspiracy to figure out what the main counterarguments being offered are.

I don't feel like reproducing my last year and a half of effusion on the issue, especially since it's all available under the marriage debate category on the left there. I do think that one of Kuznicki's points is worth responding to anew, though:

Meanwhile, Gallagher has also neglected the opposing argument, namely that same-sex marriages might actually strengthen the institution of heterosexual marriage. Although the empirical data on either side is scarce (and although this scarcity gives weight to the go-slow approach mentioned in the last comment I linked), still, I think there is at least a conceivable causal mechanism to explain why same-sex marriage might do a lot of good to the institution of heterosexual marriage: If we as a society send a message that marriage is a universal goal, one that admits of no exceptions and knows no gender lines, then it is reasonable to think that more people of all sexual orientations will want to get married.

But if large numbers of people–gays and lesbians, for example–are told that they do not need marriage, or that marriage cannot help them, or that they are unworthy of the institution, then some marginal number of straight people, especially those who identify most closely with gays and lesbians, will almost certainly come to have contempt for the institution of marriage and to see it as antiquated or irrelevant.

I'm perfectly willing to argue that homosexual relationships are no less moral than heterosexual relationships, that contribution to civilization in the form of the creation and upkeep of artifacts is just as important as contribution to civilization in the form of the creation and bringing up of children, and that the law should not be throwing obstacles in our paths when we try to care for our partners within the relationships we've chosen.

However, I've always found the argument above, even in the carefully qualified way Kuznicki presents it, to be ridiculous. The vast majority of people do not view homosexuality and heterosexuality as the same; that's true even among those who believe our relationships are just as valid (word of the week, apparently) as theirs. Despite all the changes in medicine and in the family structure over the last century, there simply remains no chance that a homosexual couple will suddenly finding itself producing a child that needs eighteen years of intensive looking-after. The number of people so bohemian in outlook that they regard their gay friends as facing the same real-life sex-related issues in all respects is so small that "marginal" hardly does it justice.

My friends hardly constitute a scientific sample of the population--good thing for America we don't!--but I doubt their attitude is untypical. A few years ago on our e-mail group, I tried to get a discussion about gay marriage going...and failed utterly. The replies were along the lines of "Of course, I think you and Atsushi should be able to get married--why the hell wouldn't i?" Even so, my friends' expressed preference has been for marriage; there have been a half-dozen weddings since we were in our late twenties. (The result, BTW, is that I'm now friends with [even] more Jews than I was in college: three of the girls converted in order to marry three of our Jewish buddies. Talk about populations that recruit!) If forced to choose between showing solidarity with gay friends and providing the most stable possible environment for their own children--assuming that's the choice they actually have to make--most people are obviously going to side with their kids.

Cathy Young has posted a long and very, very good response to Maggie Gallagher's guest-blog entries at the Volokh Conspiracy. Gallagher has also responded to Young. Something near the end of Gallagher's post took me aback in a big, bad way:

I too share your hope that we can have SSM and simultaneously figure out how to increase the likelihood that children in this country are born to and raised by their own married mom and dad.

That first part came out of left field for me--I assume it means that Gallagher figures that SSM is inevitable, anyway, so she hopes we can make the best of the change. But she's been saying for some time, unless I've read her incorrectly, that she thinks support for gay marriage has been slowly starting to wane lately. In that light, it doesn't seem likely that she would be regarding it as an inevitable development. At the same time, while I've never read her as anti-gay, she can hardly mean that she's looking forward to the advent of gay marriage. I don't quite know what to make of that bit.

Young is also right that Gallagher didn't present her arguments very fluidly, but it's hard not to sympathize with her. The crux of the pro-gay marriage argument, on the part of many of its supporters, can be delivered in a snappy sentence: "Conventional marriage isn't always about pro-creation, and gays fall in love and want to provide for their families just like straights--what justification is there for not treating their relationships the same legally?"

The crux of the argument against gay marriage is not as easy to put succinctly, involving as it does all the messy hormones and impulses and choices and things that are involved in taking a child through the two-decade transition into someone who's healthy, self-reliant, and ready to assume a place in adult society. Half of the evidence involved is probably boring even to the research psychologists and demographers who generate it. But that doesn't mean it's illegitimate.

Eric has also addressed--I hope I don't sound self-infatuated linking this, since the post in question begins by citing me approvingly; I'm not really going to deal with that part--some of the issues raised during Gallagher's guest-posting stint:

I think this "if you disagree with me, you're a bigot" meme has gotten really, really tired. The problem is, the more time people spend talking only with each other and not with people they disagree with, the more likely they are to be convinced that not only are they right, but that their opponents are more than wrong; they are evil, bigoted, and analogous to Nazis.

The irony involved in reflexively dismissing people with opposing arguments as "bigots" would be delicious were it not for the fact that the practice has so coarsened public discussion of...well, just about everything. I sometimes think it should be banned, the way your ninth-grade English teacher banned the passive voice from your first few expository essays--not because it was incorrect in and of itself incorrect but because it was too easy to get lazy and overuse.