James Taranto had a very sane column yesterday rebutting Stanley Kurtz’s tireless efforts to describe homosexual equality as inevitably leading to polygamy, bestiality, incest, prostitution, child-abuse, or whetever the latest bogey-man might be. (Isn’t it strange that the only thing some conservatives never associate homosexuality with is the one thing it is most like: heterosexuality?) Taranto makes a sharp point in this respect:
Echoing Santorum, Kurtz raises the possibility of a “slippery slope” leading from same-sex marriage to polygamy. But one can easily draw a distinction. The widespread practice of polygamy would have great social costs. It would distort the sexual marketplace by creating an undersupply of marriageable women. (Polyandry, the practice of women having multiple husbands, is too rare to be worth discussing.) The result is the creation of what Jonathan Rauch calls a “sexual underclass” of “low-status men” whose prospects for marriage are virtually nil… By contrast, it’s hard to imagine any great social harm arising from official recognition of same-sex unions. Just about anyone who would consider “marrying” someone of the same sex is outside the ordinary marriage pool anyway…
Precisely. Taranto sees no real social costs to encouraging this formerly marginalized group to have relationships that are recognized and faithful and durable. But then he says he doesn’t see any actual social advantage for granting gays marriage either. But surely the obvious conservative reason to back same-sex marriage is that it would encourage gay couples to care for each other, build responsible families and reduce promiscuity. All of these are conservative goals. So why can’t conservatives endorse them for homosexuals? I made this point way back in 1989, and I still haven’t heard a convincing argument against it. Taranto posits a compromise for those who worry that marriage would somehow be tainted by the inclusion of gays. He suggests ‘civil unions’ as an alternative way to foster gay responsibility and ensure gay equality, while leaving ‘marriage’ exclusively heterosexual. I disagree, but I can certainly see the rationale for such a proposal. Civil unions are backed by almost every Democratic candidate, and by many consistent conservatives. If I were trying to avoid gay marriage, I’d push civil unions as an obvious alternative. But the religious right won’t even tolerate that. If they have to choose between exclusion and true conservative principles, they pick exclusion every time.
The Dish 