There is a lot of waffling on both sides of the debate, between saying that marriage is a morally necessary institution with certain characteristics that transcend individual rights (similar to the moral demand for social order, etc.) or a fundamental right to marry, on the one hand, and on the other a very conventional, malliable right which is or should be designed to promote certain social goods (proper care of children, promotion of monogamy, etc.)

The two need not be at odds--one can imagine a fundamental right which also has salutary effects, e.g. voting rights, which we might want to give equal protection to, but also have good social effects. But it does make a difference whether one or the other is the central justifying reason for the right. If sociological effects are your basic justification for a right, then it makes little sense to demand that it be equally protected in the most abstract way. For example, the right of equal protection before the tax law should not imply a flat tax, because the reason for different kinds of taxation are sociologically based, and it is not considered a fundamental right to be taxed at the same rate regardless of one's economic status. And so the government concerns itself with all sorts of private affairs, such as how much investment income you get, how much you make, etc. before deciding how much you owe.

A handful of conservatives have defended gay marriage with reference to the sociological effects. E.g. David Brooks thinks that it will promote monogamy and domesticity. While I'm not surprised that Brooks would want to promote these things, he doesn't know the sociological research on the subject and argues totally off-the-cuff. But perhaps his hunch is right. Still I am surprised that some on the left would use this argument, since they just got through decrying other government efforts to promote marriage as "pushing women into marriage and childbearing" (an odd juxtapositon, considering the fact that gay men are much less inclined to live monogamously than heterosexual women are, at least in our society). Suddenly, at least for some on the left, promoting certain kinds of 'happy' family lifestyles is a legitimate political goal. I happen to agree with them in general, but I used to think that this was one place where I parted ways with my associates on the left. So the claim that "gay marriage is really about family values" seems as ad hoc as the right's many cynical uses of family values for this or that conservative idea. This argument also breaks down once marriage is opened up to anyone who wants to make a legally binding promise to care for another, including groups. The rights we seem destined to hand out do not necessarily fit our sociological goals.

The point is that if we think that the government should hand out a right 'of people to promise to care for other people' in order to promote monogamy, domesticity, and make it more likely that the hospital will let one in to see the other, then we could do that. We shouldn't kid ourselves that this is a radicaly different definition of marriage than we have been operating under, but it could be done. But if the purpose of the right is the promotion of legitimate social goals (as many rights, like rights or license to drive, have a tax break, etc. are) then we must conclude that recent Massachusetts rulings that gay couples must have the *exact same* right to contract marriage is fundamentally misguided, since it views as a fundamental, abstract right what is really a well-designed tool for increasing the common utility.

Dende could you explain what principles have been proposed to dilineate between this distinction you make between a "fundamental right" and a "malleable right." At first blush it sounds very arbitrary unless you are arguing for some kind of natural law theory.

This was article was offered to demonstrate the changing times we live in and to frame the issue in terms a conservative could understand and perhaps support. It is difficult for conservatives to understand that a relationship between gay people is a loving human relationship rather than some moral abomination and deviant behavior. The point made in the article is that Marriage isn't necessarily about love. Lots of people who do not love each other get married. More importantly the article makes the point that Marriage isn't about sex. There are plenty of people who get married who are not interested in sex. One or both partners could be impotent. The couple could be an older couple that is no longer interested in sex.

I do think that the fundamental question in the marriage debate is about helps and hurts to society. No one that I have seen has provided credible secular arguments and evidence that civil marriage between gays will cause harm to our society. David Brooks "hunch" seems convincing on the face of it and there is the clear benefit of de-marginalizing a significant population in our country. You pointed out that in our culture gay men are less likely to be monogamous, but perhaps having the option of civil marriage would change that. It is clear that a decrease in sexual promiscuity has public health benefits.

Dende wrote,
"This argument also breaks down once marriage is opened up to anyone who wants to make a legally binding promise to care for another, including groups. The rights we seem destined to hand out do not necessarily fit our sociological goals."

This sounds very much like a subtle, watered down version of the slippery slope argument that Senator Santorum made about overturning the sodomy law in Texas. He argued that if we allow sodomy, then we will have to allow sex with animals, incest, and pedophilia. Mike Jensen has made a similar argument regarding gay marriage. If we allow gay marriage then we will have to allow pedophilic marriage, incestuous marriage, polygamy, and multigamy(marriage of a group). We are not "destined" to "hand out" more rights based on this. It is fallacious reasoning plain and simple. For a more detailed discussion of this I would refer you to my last comment on the post titled Civil Unions.

I don't want to go on with this thread, but I don't want you to misunderstand the thrust of my argument so I'll say a few things.

I should go and look at the Massachusetts ruling better, because my argument is based on a certain understanding of its legal reasoning. And my argument was about two different kinds of legal reasoning, not about gay sex in general or gay marriage in general.

The slippery slope fallacy is often committed in political discussions. This is a fallacy not because it is impossible that the adoption of one policy could make it easier or even probably that some other policy may be adopted, even if the latter policy is bad. This would be an absurd claim to make, since it happens all the time. The fallacy is simply assuming that one policy will lead to another without evidence.

Now there is no question that our country or any other could craft a law that allows gay marriage but disallows other forms of unions, such as group marriage. This would be true even if the law contradicted itself. The Roman law of persons both affirmed and denied the personhood of slaves for centuries, and people held slaves legally in Europe for centuries afterwards.

My point was that the Mass. ruling does not just to open the door or lead to other forms of marriage, it indeed seems to make it impossible to argue against them. The legal reasoning abstracts from the particular characteristics of marriage (having to do with sexual union and being between two people) and interpretes it only with reference to the individual and her intent to care for. The Mass. ruling may apply this logic to a particular case, gays wanting marriage, but as far as I know the argument does not attempt to restrict itself to two adults.

My argument is not about gay marriage in general, but how it is now being brought about. I think that this legal reasoning is faulty, but I am not making any claims about whether gay marriage could make sense under some other kind of legal reasoning reasoning, what benefits it would have or whether it is morally correct according to public stanards of right. Those are questions I haven't worked out yet. This may not be the best way to 'frame the debate' to insure the victory of one side or the other but that's not my intention.

Would anybody have any comments on how homosexual marriage could promote monogamy to polygamy? I have my ideas... but it would help if I could get a couple other opinions for this paper I am writing...

Or what the effects are on children that are raised in homes with same-sex parenting? Do you think that children who live in that type of situation have a more stable family enviroment than, say, a child with a heterosexual family system?
Thanks