Back

Apologies to my readers for the lack of posts lately, I had a sort of crisis in confidence in blogging which I'll hopefully be able to articulate in a later post.

In the meantime, a great article by Jonathan Rausch that looks at family patterns in red states and blue states (like the fact that single-parent families, earlier pregnancies, rates of divorce, etc. are much higher in red states), and the implications for gay marriage.

Rausch, drawing on the work of other social scientists, theorizes that in red states, the moral tradition is that "families make adults." Thus, early marriages (often shotgun) and the addition of children are the crucible that form adults. Thus, the focus in red states is on having children within a marriage as main moral driver. This norm, however, creates some problems:

Moral traditionalism fails to prevent pre-marital sex and extra-marital childbirth. Demands for abstinence delay sexual activity, but not much, and often make early pregnancy more likely by reducing the use of contraception This increase in early pregnancy precipitates more early marriages, which are more likely to end in divorce. It also precipitates more unwed parenthood. Premature family formation, in turn, derails education and limits earning potential and increases stress on families. The resulting sense of social breakdown fuels more calls for moral traditionalism. More sex prompts more sermons and more emphasis on abstinence. The cycle repeats.

In blue states, the moral norm is reversed - adults form families, after having achieved their education and made some headway into careers, and the key moral driver is making responsible choices.

Mature adults form families to express and nurture commitment to each other and their children, and to share human capital which both partners have already amassed. Sex comes before marriage, and marriage comes before children, and indeed children need never come at all. The decisions to have sex, marry, and have children are thus distinct and separate. What counts is not the linkage but the timing (not too early, at least not without birth control!). The crucial moral requirement is not that the decisions be linked or made synchronously, but that they be made responsibly.

Rausch sees these differences in moral norms for relationships as a critical piece of determining where support or opposition to gay marriage lies:

In Blue World, gay couples fit the paradigm perfectly. They are responsible adults trying to live more stable, more responsible lives, and trying to improve the prospects of any children they may have. Who could ask for anything more?

In fact, in Blue World, marriage is incomplete if it excludes gay couples! Excluding them sends all the wrong signals about family and responsibility. It would make a hypocritical nonsense of what it is that marriage is supposed to be all about.

In Red World, things look very different. The Red project is to maintain the linkage between sex, marriage, and procreation. In Red World, de-linkage has wrought all kinds of social problems.
Same-sex marriage, in this view, is in some sense the ultimate symbolic assault on what is left of the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation.

It should be clear from my blog what side of this divide I'm on, but it's interesting to think about why so many people, particularly those who are not traditionally religious or homophobic bigots, feel threatened by gay marriage.