Contrarian Centrism at its Best
By If you need a perfect example of how non-sensical Slate’s form of knee-jerk contrarianism is, look no further than Lord Saletan’s article on gay and covenant marriage.
Fair enough. But the test goes both ways. In their foundational statement on marriage, Catholic, Baptist, and evangelical leaders claim to be defending it against cohabitation, divorce, and “diminishing interest in and readiness for marrying.” They call for “mentor couples” and “influence within society” to promote marriage. Can you imagine a more powerful influence than finding out that the gay couple down the block has a stronger marriage than you do? Can you imagine a more powerful way for that couple to earn society’s respect? Here’s a chance to get more marriage, less cohabitation, and less divorce. Is that what conservatives want? Or would they rather keep out the gays?
If anyone can show just cause why these two movements may not be joined together, let him speak now or forever hold his peace.
In other words, if we take a form of marriage that even Christian conservatives find idiotic (covenant marriage) and combine it with gay marriage, then everyone will be happy! Conservatives would love gay marriage if only the gays couldn’t get divorced!
How stupid do you have to be to write this kind of crap? Does Saletan seriously believe that conservatives are going to evaluate gay marriage based on the likelihood of divorce, rather than based on the notion, you know, that men shouldn’t marry men and women shouldn’t marry women? And why does Saletan think that gays are going to want to accept a far more legally onerous type of marriage than heterosexuals? Believe it or not, some gays just want to get married like everyone else; the point is that they love someone, not that they want to make political hay.
Saletan remains mired in this idea that for every political disagreement there is a compromise that will make everyone happy, and that if a Slate writer just thinks hard enough about it for a while, the solution will appear. It is a fundamentally unserious approach to politics.
UPDATE: In response to Patrick, I too wondered whether this article was intended as sarcasm. Let’s say that Saletan has not earned the benefit of the doubt.