Marriage: I'll stop after this -- unless I don't. The claim by Stanley Kurtz et al that allowing gay marriage would change the institution of marriage as we know it is technically correct. But this is no different than claiming that allowing women the ballot in 1920 "changed the institution of voting." It's not a logical argument against anything. Kurtz may go on to argue that marriage, as an institution, would be changed in ways he dislikes, but this too is not an argument of reason; it is simply a statement of preference. Would gay marriage, as Kurtz argues, lead to a breakdown of monogamy within marriage? Perhaps, but so what? Adultery is an individual choice, and however much we may frown upon it morally or accept it as a transgression of the marriage contract, it is most certainly not against the law in any real way. And what of infidelity in general, among heterosexual couples? Doesn't that add to the stress on the traditional definition of marriage? On the contrary, one could even argue that the traditional definition of marriage comprises infidelity, to a greater or lesser extent, in different cultures. Even in America, various studies have shown that a minority of married couples are monogamous throughout the life of their marriage. This is not to say that the definition of marriage suggests or even condones extra-marital affairs, but the institution is at least flexible enough that it has withstood infidelity, arguably, for as long as it has existed.

Most importantly, fidelity, like any aspect of a marriage relationship, is a choice. Thus, Kurtz can still have a monogamous marriage (and be proud of it) while the couple down the street (let's call them Hillary and Bill) have a different arrangement. It takes nothing from Kurtz's marriage (in fact, one could argue it makes his marriage all the more exemplary, by his criteria), just as nothing in his marriage would be lost if the married couple down the street, whatever their views on monogamy, were gay. But the conservative position turns suddenly very deterministic at this turn of argument, as is plain in the argument of David Frum today:

People’s behavior is affected by the legal regime that governs their behavior. Change the rules, and they change their behavior. Gay marriage advocates are able to grasp the point that new rules mean new behaviors when they are explaining why marriage would be good for gays. It’s disingenuous then to turn around and look baffled when opponents of gay marriage point out that new rules will mean new behaviors for straights as well - and that these new behaviors are very likely to be undesireable.

Undesireable to whom? And why? Again, how is it Frum's business what sort of arrangement Dick and Jane (or Dick and Harry) have? This is nonsense, really, like the argument that liberalizing drug laws will cause otherwise stable members of society to bolt for the seamy side of town to smoke some rock. And that, if one white-shoe lawyer, succesful CPA, or renowned surgeon does decide to do so, it sullies us all somehow.

What concerns me more is that fellows like Kurtz (who is otherwise rather moderate, socially) take such a strong, invasive position on this subject. They seem overly concerned that what amounts to a private arrangement between two people conform rather strictly to what amounts to an arbitrary standard. They may argue (from a biological standpoint) that a man-woman union is anything but arbitrary, but that would be missing the point entirely. Marriage is a socially created institution, not a biological one. It therefore adapts to society, and anyone who claims otherwise must account for the way that marriage adapted to egalitarian society out of a stricter, more feudally stratified institution -- such as is still to be found in caste societies. Thus, the overreaction of the marriage-protection crowd, on this issue, comes out smelling a whole lot more like homophobia than they might care to admit. I'm not a fan of the word homophobia; I think it is usually fairly inaccurate in its use against people who view homosexuality as immoral (as is their right). But on the issue of gay marriage, there does seem to be some fear at work -- fear that sharing the institution of marriage with homosexuals will degrade or denigrate straight marriage. (This is why, I think, the most common strategy of the marriage-defense movement is to define homosexuals as "other," particularly in the area of promiscuity.) It will change marriage, but it will not denigrate the institution, any more than Dick and Jane's swinging weekend in the Poconos will.