Even if Proposition 8 passes, same-sex couples in California will continue to have the right to adopt children, or to have children through in-vitro fertilization or surrogate parenthood. Initial indications are that most gay parents in this first generation of pioneers are conscientious. I worry some about the effects on kids of having four mothers or four fathers after a same-sex divorce with re-marriages of both parents. Sometimes it takes a couple of generations for the effects of these kinds of dramatic changes in social policy to become clear.
But I think that the bigger problem for society may come in the form of changing social standards for heterosexual marriage. If marriage is defined as a civil right, discussion of differences between same-sex unions and man-woman unions will often be considered to be “discriminatory” or “hate speech”. This repressive atmosphere is likely to have damaging effects on both same-sex and traditional couples.
In a New York Times article concerning the mixed experiences of married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, one gay man said that he and his husband had agreed that it was O.K. to play around because, “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”
Traditional marriage often requires a degree of heroic self-denial, especially on the part of men whose natural inclination is to seek variety in sexual partners. Because sex between two gay men does not produce children, the possible adverse consequences of multiple sexual partners within marriage do not include production of children with more than one partner. There is no “biological” reason for married gay men to sacrifice their desire for variety just because they are married to someone they love.
A lot of young heterosexual men would find this societal standard for marriage to be enticing, even though it would be likely to hurt them down the road (not to mention their children). A societal expectation of fidelity on the part of heterosexual marriage partners also influences many unmarried heterosexual couples, especially those with children. Even the reportedly common standard among married gay men of “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way” would not help the children of heterosexuals in my unsophistocated low-income community if applied to their parents.
According to a 2002 study published in left-leaning Child Trends, statistically, children do best in a low-stress home where they grow up with both biological parents. Just because this is not always possible does not mean that we should not encourage this type of domestic arrangement whenever possible. We need to strengthen social support for the ideal of marital fidelity between a man and a woman – not weaken it. It is hard. Why try if no one cares?
Gay couples may be able to maintain a relatively low-stress home which is conducive to raising children even though they are not “faithful” sexually. It won’t work that way for most heterosexual couples.
Certainly we do not need to re-define marriage in order to find ways to dignify same-sex couples and to encourage the best outcomes for their children. Stretching the definition of marriage in order to accommodate same-sex couples will change expectations for heterosexuals, too. Civilization is fragile. A free society can tolerate a lot of private behaviors which it should not hold as public expectations or ideals.
