Gay activists reject the claim that legal recognition of same-sex marriage will accelerate the dissolution of marriage as an institution. On the contrary, two of the most prominent spokesmen for same-sex marriage, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch, have argued that its legalization will bolster the institution and help to tame a gay culture that is promiscuous and socially harmful. Same-sex marriage will not encourage social pathologies, they argue, but help to cure them.

Sullivan and Rauch have styled their argument as the “conservative” case for same-sex marriage. But does their argument for same-sex marriage really vindicate the basic social functions and virtues—child-rearing, personal responsibility, commitment, self-sacrifice—that traditional marriage, at least in its ideal form, has provided? One way to answer this question, which tothesource will address in a later article, is to examine the social scientific evidence regarding the effects of same-sex marriage on a society. Today I will assess the logic that legalizing same-sex marriage entails.

At this moment the legislatures of at least 38 states and the US Congress have passed legislation or amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriages. Georgia is one state that is preparing to follow suit and amend its constitution. The Atlanta Journal Constitution recently editorialized against such a move. The paper’s editorial is representative of the standard case for same-sex marriage and, I suggest, it demonstrates the ultimate fallacy behind the entire “conservative” movement for same-sex marriage.

Below I’ve quoted an excerpt from the editorial, which Sullivan has posted approvingly on his website under the heading “Confronting Bigots”. I have altered one thing, however: where the word “gay” appeared in the original I replaced it with a pair of empty brackets in order to emphasize what this argument entails:

The very idea that [ ] people are trying to tear down marriage is nonsense; heterosexual people are doing quite fine on their own in that regard and hardly need the assistance of others. [ ] people have not caused the divorce rate to soar. [ ] people haven't caused the rise in single-parent families. To make [ ] people the scapegoat for the problems that plague modern marriage is absurd on its face.

In fact, to the degree that [ ] Americans wish to join in marriage, it ought to be seen as an endorsement of the institution, as a recognition that the civilizing merits and rich emotional rewards of marriage appeal not just to people of all cultures, races and ages, but to people of all sexual preference as well.

The interest of [ ] Americans in getting married is a celebration, a validation of marriage. It is not a threat.

Ten, 20, 30 years from now, we're going to have to go back into the Georgia Constitution to pull this hateful language out. And some of the very politicians who today will vote in favor of that language will no doubt be there when it is repealed, sheepishly trying to explain how it wasn't really about hate and discrimination, how back then they were just worried about protecting marriage and the family.

And you know what? Nobody will believe them. Nor should they.

As it stands, if this argument is valid and justifies same-sex marriage, clearly it must also justify bigamy, polygamy, incest, adultery—and any other invidious association we could dream up. Simply insert “incestuous” in the brackets where “gay” once stood, and see how nicely the logic flows.

This revealing feature of the argument for same-sex marriage is not peculiar to the Journal Constitution’s editorial. A similar demonstration could be performed with every pro same-sex marriage argument I have seen. Take, as another example, Rauch’s article in the Atlantic Monthly from May 2002, “The Marrying Kind: Why social conservatives should support same-sex marriage”. Here’s a representative excerpt, and as before, with brackets in place of “gay(s)” and “homosexual(s)”:

Those who worry about the example [ ] would set by marrying should be much more worried about the example [ ] are already setting by not marrying. In getting this backward the advocates of (anything less than marriage) make a mistake that is both ironic and sad. At a time when marriage needs all the support and participation it can get, [ ] are pleading to move beyond cohabitation. [ ] want the licenses, the vows, the rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes, the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us to just shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony. Someday conservatives will look back and wonder why they undermined marriage in an effort to keep [ ] out.

As this passage from Rauch’s article confirms, once “marriage” no longer means a covenant between a man and a woman, anything goes—literally.

Does the argument’s permissive logic, revealed by the brackets demonstration with the Journal Constitution editorial and Rauch’s Atlantic Monthly article, sound the death knell of any plausible case for same-sex marriage? Someone will surely object that citizens and legislatures are not bound to follow cold logic to its absurd conclusions. A state could simply endorse same-sex marriage, and trust that reasonable people will not follow the implied course to its dangerous ends. This objection has something to it, but it is ultimately unconvincing. We should not underestimate the ability of a principle, once it is enshrined in law, accepted by a culture, and placed in individuals’ minds, to work itself out to its conclusions, whether this takes place in the present generation or a future one. If this does happen, social disapproval of destructive behavior that was once strong will fall away like so many unfounded taboos.

But there is another reason this objection doesn’t stand. For in every past and foreseeable instance where the legalization of same-sex marriage is a possibility, it has been propagated through judicial imposition and not by democratic will. As Justice Scalia remarked in his dissent from Lawrence, “One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion”; “if as the court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws [against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality and obscenity] can survive rational-basis review.”

Lest anyone think that such bizarre and horrendous practices could not take root in our culture, consider the recent New York Times Magazine cover story “The Girls Next Door” (January 25, 2004). The article profiled the fate of some 50,000-100,000 young women and children who are currently fettered as sex slaves in the United States. Furthermore, a polygamist named Tom Green cited Lawrence just last month in appealing his conviction under Utah’s 113-year-old polygamy ban. The institution of polygamy may be a school for child rape, incest, physical abuse, sexual abuse, child marriage, and welfare fraud, but if we follow the logic of the case for same-sex marriage in general—there is no principled reason why it could be forbidden. In Lawrence the Supreme Court proclaimed “autonomy of the self ... [in] certain intimate conduct”. If in any matter involving “certain intimate conduct”, an individual self is autonomous—literally, a law unto itself—then no state or local community can even begin to ensure the most modest protections for those who are the result of “certain intimate conduct”, children.

The question that remains is whether citizens and their representatives—of whatever political allegiance—can transcend old ideological camps and muster the resolve to preserve traditional marriage, the first and foremost of their common goods.