Marriage and Procreation
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

Kudos to the Family Research Council for intellectual honesty. One Allan Carlson, in an essay penned for the socially conservative group, has conceded what is now obvious: it is very hard to hold the line against civil marriage for gay couples on the grounds that they cannot procreate. The reason is that civil marriage is available to any straight couple, regardless of their willingness or ability to have children. And this national consensus is now decades old:
It is now clear that the “right of privacy” conceived by the Supreme Court nearly four decades ago, is the enemy of both marriage and procreation separately, and is especially hostile when they are united. It is also clear that we lost the key battles in defense of this union decades ago, long before anyone even imagined same-sex marriage. And we lost these battles over questions that – to be honest – relatively few of us are really prepared to reopen. How many are ready to argue for the recriminalization of contraception?
Well, yes. The basic problem for the antigay marriage forces is that they are upholding a marital standard for gays that no one any longer upholds for straights. And this obvious inequality – recognized even by Justice Scalia, for example – cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under any reasonable standard of equal treatment under the law. That’s why I think it’s hyperbole to describe the Massachusetts court of judicial “activism.” The argument of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was that gays couldn’t marry because they couldn’t procreate. Once it was obvious that this standard did not apply to heterosexuals, the court had no choice but to strike down the inequality. It was not a radical decision at all. It was an inescapable one. And that’s why even a conservative court like Alaska’s upheld it. And that’s why you really do have to amend a state constitution to prevent its guarantees of equality from being applied to gay citizens.
So Procreate
The social right’s intellectually honest option, then, is obvious. And Mr. Carlson deserves praise for airing it. In order to prevent gays from marrying, the state must deny non-procreative straight couples from having the full rights of civil marriage. Maybe these non-reproducers can have civil unions until they reproduce. Maybe they can get married, but have their licenses revoked after five years if no babies are forthcoming. Mr. Carlson has another suggestion:
Perhaps we should restrict some of the legal and welfare benefits of civil marriage solely to those married during their time of natural, procreative potential: for women, below the age of 45 or so (for men, in the Age of Viagra, the line would admittedly be harder to draw).
That works, too. And when you see the issue this way, you can see why the current effort to focus only on excluding and disenfranchising gay citizens is so unfair. If nonprocreative, companionate marriage is the civil norm, then you simply don’t have a case against gay couples having marriage licenses. And if you keep this standard for straights, while forcing gays alone to bear the burden of your battle against four decades of marital evolution, then you are being deeply, deeply unfair. So which is it? A new standard? Or equality now?
Quote of the Week
“Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process.” -Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki, on the Iraq elections. Mr. Mulki was appointed by an unelected monarch.
Backlash In Holland
The trouble with letting anti-Western fascists take root in your society is that the backlash that is delayed can be all the more powerful when unleashed. Even in Holland, the sentiment in favor of cracking down on Jihadist immigrants is getting close to irresistible.
Money quote from a fascinating AP story:
“We are a Dutch democratic society. We have our own norms and values,” right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders told The Associated Press in an interview. “If you chose radical Islam you can leave, and if you don’t leave voluntarily then we will send you away. This is the only message possible.”…Wilders said that without swift, bold action, Islamic fundamentalism will topple the country’s democratic system. “The Netherlands has been too tolerant to intolerant people for too long,” he said. “We should not import a retarded political Islamic society to our country. There is nothing to be ashamed of to say this. It’s not Islam. I speak out against the facts.”
Intolerance for the intolerant: the big liberal internal conflict begins. And we hear this not long after America storms a Jihadist mosque in Baghdad. Things are changing, aren’t they?
Cambridge Postcard
“My wife and I were in New York on September 11. We had walked the city streets the afternoon after the destruction of the twin towers. Walking the streets of Cambridge the day after this election we found an eerily similar atmosphere. There were fewer people out than normally, and they were walking quietly, unsmilingly, looking shell-shocked, heads down, grim and preoccupied.” -Erik Tarloff, Prospect magazine. Apart from 3,000 deaths, it was roughly as bad, wasn’t it?
Lou Cranky Dobbs
Has anyone else noticed how Lou Dobbs has become a complete crank on the issue of free trade and illegal immigration? Every day he bangs on and on about it in the most hysterical and xenophobic terms. It’s pretty good television for a few minutes, but, after a while, it’s like listening to the bar bore after one too many drinks. I’m sure it’s also good for the ratings. But the distinction between CNN and Fox has been narrowing a little of late.
Mr. Sullivan writes every day for www.andrewsullivan.com.