Print this post Print this post

Marriage: First & Second Class

A blushing bride at 85, Spain's Duchess of Alba weds

Seville, 2011: A blushing bride at 85, Spain’s Duchess of Alba weds

968 words

Slovak translation here

First published July 3, 2013

I was surprised to learn that most moderate opponents of same-sex marriage have no problem with the idea of “domestic partnerships,” which give homosexual couples many of the legal benefits of marriage. Their thinking is: “If two homosexuals wish to share their lives and fortunes and take care of one another in sickness and old age, why shouldn’t they have the legal benefits that straight couples enjoy? Just don’t call it ‘marriage.'”

It seems a sensible compromise, unless, of course, one simply hates homosexuals and wants them to suffer.

Why not call it “marriage”? Because of a deep conviction that marriage is a more serious institution, because it provides the best framework for begetting and nurturing the next generation. Therefore, marriage should enjoy a higher dignity and status than mere domestic partnership.

Gay marriage advocates have a ready reply to this: straight people who cannot have children, or who choose not to have children, are allowed to marry. So marriage is not about reproduction.

There is no real reply to this argument. Yes, some anti-natal couples may change their minds and choose to have children. But that is not possible for sterile couples, who still can marry.

Gay marriage advocates also point out that sterile straight couples can still have families by adopting children or using surrogate parenting — and so can homosexual couples, which opens a whole new can of worms.

One can argue that homosexual couples are not optimal for the psychological development of children, which would be better served by parents of both sexes. But proponents of gay adoption could grant that argument and still retort that even suboptimal parents can give children better care than the staff of an orphanage — many of which, by the way, are staffed by people of only one sex, particulaly those run by religious orders, which are not exactly magnets for red-blooded heterosexuals either.

Homosexual marriage advocates demand marriage equality on the grounds that their couplings are not relevantly different from straight marriages, as long as sterile straights are allowed to marry for companionship, and to have families through adoption or surrogacy.

This argument cannot be dismissed as an example of modern one-size-fits-all egalitarianism run amok. For even Aristotle defined justice as treating equal cases equally — and if sterile straight couples can marry, then why not sterile homosexual couples? And if sterile straights can have families through adoption and surrogacy, then why not sterile gays? Why should homosexuals accept second-class status?

It strikes me that the only way to preserve marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution is to deal squarely with the issue of straight people who cannot or will not reproduce. In the past, when the causes of sterility were poorly understood, it was always possible to believe that a miracle baby would come along. Furthermore, shorter life spans and higher standards of taste and dignity prevented marriages between people who are simply too old to conceive. Finally, the facts that celibacy leaves a lot to be desired and that birth control was unreliable made it very unlikely that fertile couples would never produce children, even if they did not want them. Thus it made sense to think of marriage as simply the union of heterosexuals — the kind of people who, prima facie, can produce children — and just treat the instances where that did not happen as negligible. Marry ’em all, and let God sort it out.

But modern medicine has changed everything. Today, when effective birth control (including sterilization) is widely available and fertile couples can confidently avoid conception; when individuals can know for certain that they are irreversibly sterile; and when men and women routinely live long beyond when they can have children, one has to ask: Is gay marriage any more a mockery of the institution than two octogenerians pushing their walkers down the aisle to tie the knot? Is marriage between homosexuals any more a mockery than marriage between straights who cannot or will nor have children, even through adoption or surrogacy, either from medical misfortunes or simply out of selfishness, hedonism, and immaturity?

If the opponents of homosexual marriage are willing to accept a “second class” institution — domestic partnership — for infertile couplings, then why not extend that to straight couples who cannot and will not reproduce? Indeed, why not make “second class marriage” the default status for all married couples, granting first class status only upon the birth or adoption of the first child?

Of course we are talking about legal marriages here, marriages recognized by the state. People are — and would remain — free to celebrate religious or spiritual marriages of their own design and definition. But the state need not recognize all of them.

In such a system, the existence of homosexual marriage would be entirely contingent on whether it is deemed desirable to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, avail themselves of surrogacy, or raise the children of one partner’s previous marriage. None of these arrangements strike me as optimal conditions for raising children if heterosexual alternatives are available.

Exploring the idea of limiting marriage only to couples who have children, while reserving domestic partnership for the rest, has benefits far beyond reframing the debate about homosexual marriage, which is a minor issue compared to the demographic and cultural problems caused by the decline of heterosexual marriage and the heterosexual family.

Even if homosexual marriage were not an issue, the distinction between marriage and domestic partnership allows us to refocus and recenter the institution of marriage on the sole function by which it merits special social and legal status: the procreation and nurture of the next generation. Such an arrangement would uphold the heteronormativity and reproductive purpose of marriage while giving options to those who fall short.


If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Ray Symm
    Posted July 21, 2015 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

    You can determine sterility for some people in the present based on their biological condition, but you can only really determine sterility among all couples retroactively, since some couples might have a 50/50 chance of conceiving during their lifetime. Using this retroactive model, you could posit marriage status in stages. Stage one could be a couping of monagmites, stage 2: monogamites that have conceived a biological child, and stage 3: monogamites who have become biological grandparents. Anyway, I see the goal, which is to give childbearing in marriage a boost. I still think homosexual marriage, even if in ‘stage 1’ if you will, is still offensive because apart from arguments based on reproductive function, there are arguments based on just having the right machinery related to reproductive function. I mean, I know that in the end homosexual acts count as much as hetero ones. I would think that sterile hetero unions at least pay symbolic homage to reproductive sex as far as bodily machinery is concerned. Think of it this way. Sterile hetero unions have the right machinery but it doesn’t work whereas Homosexuals don’t even have the machinery to begin with. I think it would be an offense to sterile straights to equate their shortcomings with those of homosexuals, especially since their problems don’t involve a problem with their sexual agency. I guess it depends if you shun a pyschological shortcoming more than a physicial one. I would argue that sterile straights have their minds right but their bodies functionally faulty whereas homosexuals have their minds wrong and their bodies wrong to an even greater degree because they don’t have the right machinery for reproduction. I’m all for giving a boost to childbearing, but I think you’re doing it by dragging down sterile straights to the homosexual level of reproductive shortcoming. So, why not have stage 1 for homosexuals, stage 2 for hetero couples who are childles, stage 3 for hetero couples who have biological children, and stage 4 for hetero couples with biological grandchildren. I know that I’m holding onto the dystinction between hetero and homo sterile as a functionally irrelevent physical artifact, but I dunno, what is the whole damn movement about, afterall? It’s not about good function. The white race itself is something of an artifact that need not achieve any goal per se. I mean, the only necessary part of being white is having the phenotype, not inventing the modern world or advancing math and science, etc. I guess maybe we could make everything other than race, including gender, be functional in service of the race and let proliferation of the white race be the lone sort of artifact we support. I guess I’m trying to extend that thinking to gender. One thing I would say is that the same sort of reality based thinking that leads us to make a racial distinction would also seem to be relevant to gender. The sort of reality based viso spatial distinctions maybe should be supported in the sense that diminishing one might diminsh the other. Anyway I’m ranting now. So far as the goal of esteeming childbearing in marriage goes, it’s a tough task. I’ve tried getting intellegient happily married whites I know to have kids and they get offended that you’re invading their private life. They say “Have your own kids, if you want kids”. I really don’t know how to successfully encourage them toward childbearing but I want to.

  2. Leon
    Posted June 29, 2015 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    Maybe this is a stupid question, but why bother with domestic partnerships at all? Why not just reserve the legal and financial benefits for those with children and allow ‘marriage’ to function as a traditional and social institution like before? Then we wouldn’t be having these political battles.

  3. Ty
    Posted June 28, 2015 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    I think most folks are simply tired of hearing this group whine constantly. I think that is more the problem than their alleged (and curiously sudden) desire to “marry.”

    • Sandy
      Posted June 29, 2015 at 1:45 am | Permalink

      I felt the same way as Ty did until I read

      What Justice Kennedy is saying has nothing to do with religion. This is the legal right to inherit property if two people lived together or one is in a coma and the other has no legal standing to even be in the room. These are the “legal” rights that are attached to a civil marriage, which requires a license because it is a tax.

      Put that way it makes sense but it still is kind of weird.

One Trackback

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above