Many of my friends have been disappointed with the response to the NY marriage vote at some conservative outlets, and I can hardly blame them. It’s difficult to imagine a similar response if one of the other legs of the conservative “stool” suffered such a setback. That said, National Review’s sensible editorial on marriage should go a long way in correcting that disappointment. In it the editors offer a notably clear defense of marriage:
As normative features of marriage, permanence, exclusivity, and sexual complementarity are a package deal. The first two norms make sense—are intelligible as norms—only because of the link between marriage and procreation. The only question, increasingly, is whether the loss of these once-defining attributes of marriage is bad.
The marriage revisionists (here’s looking at you, Greg Sargent ) never tire of claiming that marriage supporters have no argument to stand on. But time and again marriage supporters have clearly explained why it only makes sense to attach the norms of marriage—-permanence and exclusivity—-to relationships that are procreative in nature. Banish procreation from your conception of marriage and there is no intelligible reason to not extend “marriage” to polyamorous groups or whoever else seeks state sanction for their love life. This is a pretty simple idea, but those who want to hear more should read Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George’s article ” What Is Marriage? ,” which provides ample elaboration.
