Schulman on SSM: Civilization in Crisis
Eve
Tushnet linked to
this article by
Sam Schulman opposing same-sex
marriage. I think the opening passage nicely sums up how
fairly and even-handedly the author treats the matter:
The feeling seems to be growing that gay marriage is
inevitably coming
our way in the U.S., perhaps through a combination of judicial fiat and
legislation in individual states. Growing, too, is the sense of a shift
in the climate of opinion. The American public seems to be in the
process of changing its mind—not actually in favor of gay marriage, but
toward a position of slightly revolted tolerance for the idea. Survey
results suggest that people have forgotten why they were so opposed to
the notion even as recently as a few years ago.
Yeah, people couldn't have been convinced by argument that there was no
good reason to oppose same-sex marriage; they must have simply
forgotten why they were opposed in the first place.
"Well, I seem
to remember I was
against same-sex marriage, but I can't seem
to
remember
why. Guess I'd better just resign myself to
slightly
revolted tolerance from now on." I'll have to check
USA Today's
site to see if they have any of their old surveys archived; I'd love to
see how many people checked the "tolerant, yet slightly revolted"
option. Wait, that's funny:
This
opinion piece from
USA Today states that recent polling
data shows increasing numbers of Americans opposed to same-sex
marriage. I guess they forgot that they forgot that they opposed
same-sex marriage.
The rest of the article goes on to argue that allowing SSM will result
in an "Antigone moment":
To me, what is at stake in this debate...is our ability to
maintain the
most basic components of our humanity. I believe, in fact, that we are
at an “Antigone moment.” Some of our fellow citizens wish to impose a
radically new understanding upon laws and institutions that are both
very old and fundamental to our organization as individuals and as a
society. As Antigone said to Creon, we are being asked to tamper with
“unwritten and unfailing laws, not of now, nor of yesterday; they
always live, and no one knows their origin in time.” I suspect,
moreover, that everyone knows this is the case, and that,
paradoxically, this very awareness of just how much is at stake is what
may have induced, in defenders of those same “unwritten and unfailing
laws,” a kind of paralysis.
To me, this sounds a lot like a natural law argument, something I don't
have much sympathy for. As I see it, laws are created by humans
to serve their needs; humans do not serve unchanging natural
laws. (I also thought it was strange that Schulman
thinks people have forgotten their reasons for opposing SSM but
everyone simply
knows that we are in danger of tampering with
the very fabric of society.)
Schulman, like most
opponents of SSM, settles the matter by begging it: "[B]y
definition, the essence of marriage is to sanction and solemnize that
connection of opposites which alone creates new life." (Well of
course same-sex couples can't get married! Look, the word
'opposite' is built right into the very definition of marriage!
Silly homosexuals!) Schulman also
conveniently sidesteps the thorny issue of childless opposite-sex
marriages by simply stating "Whether or not a given married
couple does in fact create new life is immaterial." Sure,
but only if the couple is heterosexual, right? The fact that a
homosexual couple could not create new life on their own generally
receives a great deal of attention from SSM opponents. But if a
heterosexual couple is childless, for whatever reason?
Irrelevant!!
In a possibly revealing slip, Schulman
refers to opposite-sex marriage as "an idea":
Their union is not a formalizing of romantic love but
represents a
certain idea—a construction, an abstract thought—about how best to
formalize the human condition. This thought, embodied in a promise or a
contract, is what holds marriage together, and the creation of this
idea of marriage marks a key moment in the history of human
development, a triumph over the alternative idea, which is concubinage.
This seems to be at odds with his opening claims that human beings are
attempting to tamper with laws whose origins in time are unknown.
If traditional heterosexual marriage is simply an idea, why can't that
idea be altered as society's (and citizens') needs change? As
Schulman
points out, after all, "Circumstances have, admittedly, changed."
Also nice is Schulman's reliance on sexist stereotypes of masculinity
to reinforce his position: "[A] man desperate to marry is often
considered to have something wrong with him—to be unusually controlling
or needy." Schulman makes this enlightened point while arguing
that men never feel incomplete without marriage the way that women do
(in itself another nice stereotype: "All women feel empty if
they're
not married!") Perhaps Schulman's never run across men who
genuinely want to settle down with someone—men who feel empty after
years of unfulfilling dating—but they do exist. Of course, in
Schulman's view, such men must be "deficient" in some way.
But Schulman saves his most offensive comments for this bit:
Why should I not be able to marry a man? The question
addresses a class
of human phenomena that can be described in sentences but
nonetheless cannot be. However much I might wish to, I cannot be a
father to a pebble—I cannot be a brother to a puppy—I cannot make my
horse my consul. Just so, I cannot, and should not be able to, marry a
man. If I want to be a brother to a puppy, are you abridging my rights
by not permitting it? I may say what I please; saying it does not mean
that it can be.
That's right—Schulman just equated two members of the same sex wanting
to marry each other with someone wanting to be brother to a
puppy. ("It's gibberish! You people are talking
nonsense!! How can I reason with people whose words have no
meaning?") Without even getting into how many people do come to
think
of pets as family members, Schulman's argument here is mind-bogglingly
bad (whether out of mere callousness or malice I have no idea):
No rights are lost if someone is told that they cannot be a brother to
a puppy. But when a same-sex couple is told they can't marry,
there
are substantive rights on the line—somewhere
over a
thousand, by
one estimate.
Finally, Schulman sets out what he sees as the consequences of allowing
SSM:
Severing this connection [between human beings and our
animal origins] by defining it out of existence—cutting it
down to size, transforming it into a mere contract between
chums—sunders the natural laws that prevent concubinage and incest.
Unless we resist, we will find ourselves entering on the path to the
abolition of the human. The gods move very fast when they bring ruin on
misguided men.
Wow, now
that's a slippery slope! Not only will
concubinage and incest naturally follow the adoption of SSM but the
very
destruction of humanity itself!! All those underachievers who
always pull out the same old hat about polygamy should be
embarrassed. Schulman puts them to shame.
At first I was annoyed that I bothered to read this piece. But
now I'm actually glad I read it: I mean, this article can't be
for real, can it? This is probably from something like
The
Onion,
right? (Heck, this Sam Schulman is almost as funny as
that Pope guy The
Onion covered last week.) Whew, you almost had me there,
man! But now that I
get the joke, all I can say is: FRIED COMEDY GOLD.
