Let Gays Have Marriage; We’re Not Using It – updated
posted at 3:41 pm on April 22, 2009 by Laura
[ Double Standards ] printer-friendly
The current pseudo-scandal over Carrie Prejean’s views favoring traditional marriage should be very instructive for social conservatives. Dissent will not be tolerated. She had the temerity to express a view that even ten years ago was considered entirely unremarkable: that marriage is exclusively a union of a man and a woman.
But in the midst of the outrageously outrageous outrage by the leftist thought police, and the return shrieking of social conservatives (religious and otherwise) let’s review how this even became an issue. It’s not because of the Radical! Homosexual! Agenda! that the AFA and others warn you about in their fundraising emails. It’s because of us.
If you put something out with the trash, the police can search it without a warrant. Anyone walking by can take it. Although it’s still on your property, it’s not really yours anymore; you’ve relinquished your claim to it. And that’s exactly what we’ve done with marriage. We might as well let gays have it. We’re not using it.
There are four elements of the marriage crisis:
* Marriage: The marriage rate has plunged 50% since 1970. If the same percentage of couples were marrying now as in 1970, there would be a million more marriages a year – 3.3 million marriages, not 2.2 million. Those who have never-married aged 30-44 have tripled from 6.8% in 1970 to 20.4% in 2005.
* Divorce: Half of all new marriages end in divorce. There have been 42 million divorces since 1970 hurting 40 million children. One quarter of all adults age 18-35 have grown up in divorced families.
* Cohabitation: The number of unmarried couples living together soared 12-fold from 430,000 in 1960 to 5.4 million in 2005. There are only 2.2 million marriages a year. Thus, cohabitation has become the dominant way male-female unions are formed. Couples who marry after living together are 50% more likely to divorce than those who did not.
* Unwed births: Out-of wedlock births jumped from 5.3% to 37.4% or from 224,000 to 1.5 million children from 1960-2004. Cohabiting couples are as likely to have a child under 18 as married couples (41% vs. 46%).
And for my fellow Christian conservatives: we haven’t got a moral leg to stand on. Our divorce rate is identical to the national average. We allow our churches to be used as elaborate stage sets for bridezilla productions, often with just pro forma premarital counseling or sometimes none at all. When our fellow church members get divorced, we do not counsel them adequately. We fail to create a culture of marriage in our youth and twenty-somethings. We have shown massive disrespect for marriage. When we demand others respect it, it’s not surprising that we’re not taken seriously.
Gay marriage is going to be a fact of life. So is polygamy, because the arguments for gay marriage easily carry over to support it. That’s already coming to a court in Canada. Given a bit more time, society will accept it, and a court will find a reason to allow it, first in Canada, then here. In London, they can’t even bestir themselves to fight against forced marriage in any serious way. In a multi-cultural society, marriage means whatever people want it to mean, and complaining about that is “intolerant.”
Where we need to focus our attention at this point is making sure that newly created “human rights” don’t overtake our right to speak and act as we please. We need to make sure people are free to refuse work on same sex ceremonies unlike this New Mexico Christian photographer who was required to pay an over $6600 fine. We need to make sure that American pastors can’t be subjected to show trials, forced to renounce their faith and suffer big fines for repeating what the bible says. In short, we need to get busy making sure that dissent WILL be tolerated. Because considering the reaction to Carrie Prejean’s polite dissension, it soon won’t be.
UPDATED: R.S. McCain’s article at The American Spectator from earlier this month, Marriage: A Hill to Die On, is well worth a read. (h/t Riehl)
I don ‘t precisely fit into any of the categories he provides for conservatives who have given up on the issue; I guess the closest fit would be “unprincipled cowards and defeatists.” 
Perhaps so. But I’m more demoralized by how our side treats marriage than by the left’s victories to expand its definition. And I’m concerned enough about what our postmodern, multi-culti society is willing to tolerate in terms of squelching dissent and debate that I think we need to turn most, if not all, of our attention to defending freedom of speech. McCain makes the case that the marriage battle is still winnable. I hope he’s right and I’m wrong.
Instalanche! Thanks very much for the link! Welcome and do read R.S. McCain’s response to this post, it’s excellent.
.
* Compilation of several posts at Pursuing Holiness.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
We already have polygamy. It is called spirit marriages.
strangelet on April 22, 2009 at 3:45 PM
How I wish thses statistics weren’t true! My wife and I are doing premarital counseling with a young couple who will be married in June, and even though they are both committed Christians, we see the effects of the larger culture reflected in some of their attitudes. Couples who wish to remain committed for a lifetime are definitely swimming against a strong current in our society.
common sensineer on April 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Marriage is and has been the domain of natural law, which not even our great Constitution assumes power over. The GOP should stick to issues of civil law, and not natural law, and stay true to limited government.
Whether Christians have a moral leg to stand on is irrelevant. One doesn’t even have to touch morality to understand gay marriage is not in the purview of government. This is another great lie from the left.
Spirit of 1776 on April 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
If NAMBLA gets in the loop, child marriages can’t be far behind.
[Ewwww...awful pun...bad bad CW, bad.]
Seriously, if civil unions were all that mattered, and back in the 1990’s that is what the argument focused on, and I had the unfortunate experience of helping to console a lifetime friend who was prevented access to a 20-year partner while said partner was dying at GW hospital because his family refused my friend’s access…because he was gay and the dying man was somehow not gay. And my friend then learned that the house the two of them purchased and fixed up over on Lincoln Park in DC went to the surviving family…who put nothing into it, nor ever visited it…because the deceased was the name on the mortrgage.
There is plenty of good reason for recognizing civil unions.
But, now, the focus is on “marriage.” A slippery slope to be certain.
If same-sex marriage is recognized, what of marriages of other “protected classes?” Man-boy? Man-many men? Woman-many men? Man-many women? Boy and his dog?
The fact that churches are now being threatened with legal action if they do not embrace same-sex marriage ceremony requests in states that have allowed same-sex marriage…let’s think this one out, carefully.
Civil unions…yes! These require the participation of the state.
Same-sex marriage? Anyone with a few bucks and internet access can become an ordained something or other…Let’s examine that law of unintended consequences real careful first, maybe?
coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Hey, I agree with you guys. I’m not in favor of same sex marriage. I’m just saying what I fully expect to happen and where I think we need to focus now. And as for child marriages – I won’t be at all surprised, but not because of NAMBLA. Because of Islam.
One of my daughter’s friends, who was born here but has a Palestinian father, was sent back to the auld sod for a visit. After she got to Israel she managed to get a couple of emails out – it was a set up. She was married at 14 to a cousin. I don’t even know what sort of legal recourse she had (I assume some), but my point is that a lot of the country is conditioned to accept this. People we know were not offended – “that’s just how they do things,” and “a lot of 14 year olds are having sex anyway.” Another twenty years, and I think we’ll see much looser restrictions on age in marriage.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM
This is pretty much like beating your spouse then telling her she is hopeless.
eforhan on April 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM
An excellent point to raise…and one that will be shunned by the MSM at all costs.
coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 4:27 PM
I think that gays should be allowed to have marriage so long as we are allowed to ban abortion. Then gay couples should be allowed to adopt. I can’t imagine any conservative believing that an aborted child would be better off dead than in the hands of a gay couple.
jimmy the notable on April 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM
No, actually polygamy is illegal. Unfortunately, stupidity and moronic posts are not.
The Wall on April 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM
(I meant the argument about Christians/conservatives having the national average rates. I’ve seen the argument used many times )
I do agree with Laura it is likely coming. As long as it’s considered a “civil rights” issue and compared to slavery or separate fountains, then it’s just a matter of time.
eforhan on April 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I understand your point. I do not, however, want to abandon the line to simply reform on another where the ground is not as good. If you yield the government the power to regulate marriage, how can you make a case for them not having the ability to regulate speech in the manner you fear?
As you say, it may be a fact of life in the future, but what does it cost to stand on the actual legal lines.
Spirit of 1776 on April 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM
My son is 15 and he is the only kid in his circle of about 12 friends whose parents are still married to each other. And this is a nice upscale suburb with a high percentage of Catholics.
The rector of our Episcopal church is divorced.
How am I supposed to make sure my kids understand the importance and sanctity of marriage??
rockmom on April 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Bunk. Not even the national rate is as high as its claimed because they calculate it in a stupid fashion. The per capita rate is what’s relevant, not the rate for all marriages. People can and do get married multiple times, which inflates the rate for everyone. Bad stats.
So we should ensure our rights are protected by rolling over and giving up a bunch of ground? Fantastic. Taking marriage away from the state is the only viable option. What you’re proposing is tantamount to giving up and hoping for the best.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Nothing will destroy the gay “culture” quicker then gay marriage.
The_Vig on April 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
My high school boyfriend’s mother was married at 14, in West Virginia, and gave birth to his brother at 15. (They later divorced.) This was commonplace in Appalachia until pretty recently. Loretta Lynn was also married at 14. Families were large and parents wanted the “young’uns” out of the house and on their own as soon as possible.
rockmom on April 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I think you are correct on the stats…and our responsibility as the church in it all. I also agree that we need to make sure that our speech is free.
But, I also think we cannot abandon the battle over LANGUAGE.
I realize the seemingly futile effort is tiring and seems insurmountable. It likely is. But, should we ever stop fighting against it? I do not care if there are hypocrites to the right and left of me, we are STILL to work for good in all areas while we are here.
There are many fronts to fight this on, and only one is political. For starters, we tend to our own households and church family. For all our lamenting over the state of the church, were are we doctrinally? Seek to educate other believers. Teach a worldview class. Talk about issues…read current books and discuss ideas with each other. Get actively involved with other couples and don’t simply commiserate but admonish each other!
Politically, we certainly have to continue the fight for the DEFINITION of marriage. It is a worthy thing, not only for ourselves, but for possible future generation who might have a shot at a revived culture, we can only hope.
As a rule, I reject pragmatism. I think I’ll stick with my principled opposition!
Mommypundit on April 22, 2009 at 4:39 PM
There is a lot of truth in what this writer has to say. You would think that those that wanted to defend traditional marriage would be a bit more harsh on heterosexuals that are married and don’t take their vows as serious as they should.
SC.Charlie on April 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM
I have to agree with this post actually. As Ed put it, with no fault divorces, we lost the right to pretend this is about religion.
But then, I also agree with him that government should acknowledge partnerships, not marriages.
Esthier on April 22, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Spirit of 1776 on April 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Oh, we can keep fighting it. If it comes to a vote, I’ll vote against it. I’m just saying we actually surrendered a long time ago. And on the micro level, I’m not bothered by it. It’s the macro I’m worried about – how will our personal rights be restricted? And I think they will be, especially if we continue to be complacent about it.
I wouldn’t be against separating civil and religious marriage the way France has done.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 4:35 PM – I’m willing to be convinced – show me some better stats!
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 4:44 PM
This is why conservatism will go the way of the dodo. “The wave of evil is coming so we might as well swim with the current”. Why don’t we do that with every issue. Socialism is coming, let’s just support it! I spit on this cowardice.
Assuming the writer really is a conservative and not a libertarian astroturfer. Which isn’t unlikely, she is using the same stale arguments:
“When we demand others respect it, it’s not surprising that we’re not taken seriously.”
Yeah, that’s why prop 8 passed in CALIFORNIA.
lol
Darth Executor on April 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Then why does the title of this piece start with “let gays have marriage”?
Darth Executor on April 22, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Darth, it’s unlikely I’d put something like that over on Michelle, who asked me to blog here. The reason I said in the post “let gays have marriage, we’re not using it,” is because I believe we surrendered the battle quite a while back. I’ll still go through the motions but I have no expectation of winning, thanks to our own inconsistencies on this issue. My view is that we need to strategically focus our efforts elsewhere; namely, protecting our free speech and right to dissent without it being called hate speech.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Laura, you’re using bad stats when you talk about christians and divorce… weekly churchgoers as opposed to “christians” pretty much have the lowest divorce rate in the country… I still agree with your overall point though… especially about the bridezillas… there needs to be protections for religious orgs though…
ninjapirate on April 22, 2009 at 4:54 PM
I have a question. Is the consummation of the marriage a requirement? If 2 people are unable to consummate would they be able to get an annulment at any time, or is that just back in the old days.
The_Vig on April 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Wrong logic
Christians have an equal divorce rate because they get married. The ones that shack up, do not become divorce stats.
seven on April 22, 2009 at 4:57 PM
seven
What about common law marriage? If they shack up and never get married, would they need a divorce to split up? Especially with kids involved.
The_Vig on April 22, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Here you go Laura.
Check it out.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM
That explains the “we’re not using it” part. If you’ll read my post you’ll see that’s not the one I asked about. I’ll grant, for the sake of argument, that we messed up (actually I think that overall we’ve been messing up for a century and we messed up so badly that conservatism is on its death bed and won’t recover). That does not mean we should just let marriage go to hell. “Let the gays have marriage” is in direct contradiction to “Oh, we can keep fighting it. If it comes to a vote, I’ll vote against it.”
Unless there’s some “do as I say, not as I do” thing going on here.
Neither do I, especially when people like you are repeating the bogus divorce arguments as if they have some merit (they do not). There is no law against all divorce, that’s a straw man fabricated by liberals. The existence of divorce does not necessarily mean we’re spitting on marriage. There are valid reasons for divorce and even Christ acknowledged it was tolerated by the proper authorities (not endorsed, but tolerated). Sadly, modern Christianity has failed in its duty to produce strong disciples, and instead is obsessed with numbers rather than providing people with a solid foundation for their faith. In particular, the lack of an understanding of the social world of the bible (which would make it painfully obvious that Christ’s admonition regarding divorce isn’t absolute, even if none of the apostles had explicitly made exceptions) is killing us.
We don’t need to fight this. The constitution protects the right to free speech. If we actually have to fight this then we already lost.
Darth Executor on April 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Missed this. She lets MadisonConservative post here, and I KNOW he’s a libertarian astroturfer for sure. I highly doubt Michelle knows everybody who posts in the green room personally.
Darth Executor on April 22, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Jesus did say in Luke 16:18 “Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Agreed the first amendment protection for “free exercise” is vital and shouldn’t be subverted by government do-gooders.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 5:17 PM
Women are 98% at fault for the situation marraige is in today. A man cannot justify getting married when the laws about divorce of the land are 99% sympathetic towards women and 99% hostile towards men. Men have to seriously consider what happens if he and his to be wife ever get divorced. He loses half or more of his lifetime savings immediately, as well as alimony that could last years and even until death. He also has to consider that he has no control of whether he and his wife divorce, she has total control of that aspect, and maybe she is just using him to get that eventual HALF as well as alimony. The society has deemed it impossible to impugn the statements of supposedly wronged women. If they say they were abused in any way, it is simply a fact that it is so, and the man must live with that stain on his character for the rest of his life, no matter what really transpired. If you find out your wife cheated on you and three of your three children are not really yours, you are still going to be paying child support, until they turn 21. What exactly is the incentive to get married in this kind of society?
We did not throw marraige out, marraige laws, or more correctly, divorce laws, threw men out. Fix the laws, readjust the perspective and get rid of the forced penalties of divorce, and you will see a huge swing back towards marraige.
WOMEN are to blame, and they need to take responsibilty and give up some of the cursed progress they have made.
astonerii on April 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Wow, you’re bitter.
Esthier on April 22, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Garbage in garbage out. Your data is wrong Laura. Christian divorce rate is NOT identical to the national average, it’s not even close. “Half of all new marriages end in divorce” is also incorrect…It’s about 70/30.
bard on April 22, 2009 at 5:30 PM
TUG – your article replaces that “half” stat with this –
Other stats cited for various demographics are 35% and 27%.
It isn’t terribly persuasive to me; it’s just a few percentage points. And we still need to account for the much higher rates of cohabitation, which has been increasing for years; not getting married at all naturally impacts – lowers – the divorce rate. People just move out and move on to the next relationship. I also found this CDC report which includes a detailed breakdown like your article, along with cohabitation rates, breakups, etc. Lots of charty goodness starting on page 22. I believe my point stands: as a society we have largely abandoned marriage.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I know what you’re saying, but, most of those laws will affect men with or without marriage. In many states there is now palimony that is awarded when a couple that has been shacking up for years splits up. The child support laws (which are definitely biased against men) are in effect with or without marriage.
I don’t have any proof, but, I suspect one of the real reasons people aren’t getting married any more is because there are very few positive portrayals of marriage out their in the zeitgeist. It gets to the point where you think the happily married people are an exception rather than something that can be achieved by almost everyone that is careful with their selection of a spouse and willing to put in the elbow grease to make things work.
You combine the scary image of marriage with a society that no longer condemns shacking up and you have a perfect recipe for a society that shies away from marriage.
JadeNYU on April 22, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I am failing today on the “there, they’re, their” rules.
That should be “…there are very few positive portrayals of marriage out THERE…”
JadeNYU on April 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM
I tell you what, Darth. Why don’t you stop worrying about my bona fides and engage my argument on the merits. As to “We don’t need to fight this. The constitution protects the right to free speech. If we actually have to fight this then we already lost.” why don’t you click on the links in my article – in both the US and in Canada, Christians have been fined for opposing homosexual marriage, or in the case of the photog, just saying she didn’t want to photograph it. That’s a serious issue, and I believe it’s the battle we need to be fighting NOW.
bard on April 22, 2009 at 5:30 PM – again, I’m willing to be convinced. I provided a link to support my statement, now you do the same.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM
What good is free speech to a man who so easily gives up what he believes to be true?
Badbrucskie on April 22, 2009 at 5:37 PM
May this book point others to Scripture so as to encourage Biblical reformation in our “Christian marriages.”
ColtsFan on April 22, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Some people who visit a gay bath house just shrug and back up against the wall with the holes in it.
Hint: just because we’re not perfect doesn’t mean we get up and dance with Satan.
pabarge on April 22, 2009 at 5:40 PM
The court case in Canada is a criminal complaint against polygamy. The first in 60 years, if some of the news reports are accurate. It’s true the defense plans to use gay marriage to justify polygamy, which is ironic, considering polygamists tend to take a dimmer than usual view of homosexuality. Will you argue that gay marriage is a bulwark against polygamy if the defense fails?
Polygamy is not a sexual orientation. We can study communities of polygamists and easily see the harm it causes. There is no slope leading from gay marriage to polygamy. Quite the opposite. The cultures that allow polygamy also have the strictest laws prohibiting any kind of homosexual behavior. Please mothball this pathetic slippery slope argument already.
RightOFLeft on April 22, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Question: if we care so deeply about marriage, why aren’t we practicing what we preach?
Now, I’m not saying you commenters don’t care deeply about marriage. For the sake of argument I’ll concede that everyone here is unmarried or on their first marriage, has a biblical view of marriage (including the fact that the goal of marriage isn’t personal happiness, nor is that a reason to divorce), and that we all support marriage in every way possible.
I’ll even concede that the Christian divorce rate can be attributed to cultural (not actual) Christians who self-identify as Christians but really haven’t got a clue. So we can blame it on them.
But overall, the stats in that CDC report, which I think most of us would call authoritative, show that heteros have abandoned marriage. So if you don’t agree we should turn our focus to other things, and instead we should fight to recover it, how exactly do you plan to do so?
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Nine is a lot more than “a few.”
And because some people are getting married and divorced and others aren’t getting married at all “as a society we have largely abandoned marriage.” Huh? What’s that even mean. There are still plenty of marriage. Most of them still last a lifetime.
You don’t have a point, you’ve got a defeatist streak. Buck up and get over it.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM
What does that even mean?
The Monster on April 22, 2009 at 5:54 PM
…
We should seek to remove it from government control, like many (Like, you know, Ed) have been saying for some time now. What we shouldn’t do is throw up our hands and start acting morose over the decay of marriage of modern society.
Sociological trends are a pendulum. If you don’t push back against the momentum the swing gets bigger than it needs to, and bad things happen as a result.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM
WRT polygamy, RightofLeft, I find Krauthammer’s argument persuasive:
In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one’s autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement — the number restriction (two and only two) — is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM
Okay, seek to remove it from government control means… ? Separating civil and religious marriage, like the french do? I’m in favor of that. As for the morose… gee, I guess I’d better work on my writing to better convey tone. I don’t feel morose. Just gearing up for the next big battle, to conserve our rights to continue to oppose this without being accused of hate speech, fined, and metaphorically tarred and feathered by forced apologies.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 6:04 PM
It has many uses. The free speech part of the first amendment should be used to articulate a defense of the free exercise part of the first amendment.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 6:12 PM
He’s ignoring that the “autonomous choice of love” is also an anatomical choice of love. The argument for gay marriage doesn’t just rest on the issue of fairness. I think it’s entirely appropriate for social conservatives to weigh the fairness against the practical harm it may cause. That’s where the argument for polygamy fails (and where the argument for gay marriage succeeds). One causes an immediate harm, the other doesn’t.
Krauthammer was a nice choice. I don’t like to disagree with him, but there you have it.
RightOFLeft on April 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM
You know what I mean. It’s not an uncommon position.
Regardless, there’s been no society wide abandonment of marriage – it’s just at a low ebb. People are wired to have a mate; usually for life. That hasn’t changed, so marriage will endure even through fluctuations in culture.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 22, 2009 at 6:15 PM
There are differences. Among them, dropping the gender requirement doesn’t affect straight marriages–polygamy does. Polygamy eliminates the exclusivity provision and changes the nature of every existing marriage. A marriage that was originally intended to be exclusive can be modified over time to include other spouses.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 6:19 PM
This fight was decided in the 1970s, when no-fault divorce became the legal norm. No-fault divorce contains a planted axiom: the happiness of the couple matters above all else. (After all, why allow people to divorce in the absence of cause unless their personal happiness is paramount?) And if the happiness of adults is what matters, then you’re hard put to explain why gay adults shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity to be happy (or unhappy, as the case may be).
In this debate, people talk past one another. Opponents of same-sex marriage appeal to a vision of what marriage once was, or what they think it should be. Meanwhile, supporters of same-sex marriage appeal to what marriage is, especially as a matter of law. And since the advocates of same-sex marriage are pressing their case in courts of law, they will continue to score legal victories. You can’t go to court, at least not in the United States, with a religious or philosophical argument. You have to go with a legal argument. And for better or worse, our law regards marriage as an institution for celebrating the affections of adults.
paul006 on April 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I’m not trying to be an ass. I always enjoy your comments, even in the times when I’ve just lurked around here and didn’t join in the conversation. We are generally in agreement. I was seriously trying to clarify your postion and learn what you mean by separate marriage from government control. I read that as do what the french do, but for all I know there’s some new concept out there I haven’t encountered yet. As to whether there’s been a society wide abandonment… I guess we’ll have to disagree on that one. I honestly hope you’re right and I’m wrong, because I believe we’re better off with marriage than without it.
paul006 on April 22, 2009 at 6:22 PM – Bingo. Add to that, that the law in the hands of activist judges means whatever they think it *should* mean.
Laura on April 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Irrelevant. Many marry later than 44. (My brother married a few months ago at age 44)
jgapinoy on April 22, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Mark Twain was right about statistics.
Everyone calls themselves Christians in the US. Better studies show that things like praying together daily, involvement in church, ministry, & bible study lead to lower divorce rates.
jgapinoy on April 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM
You make a good point that legalizing polygamy would affect current marriages and that makes it different than legalizing gay marriage.
However, I believe that the legal argument for gay marriage (that the gender clause is discriminatory) still provides a great legal argument for polygamy (that the number clause is also discriminatory). I do not think that the fact that legalizing polygamy requires an additional clause regarding whether or not it’s allowed with current marriages changes the fact that the legal groundwork for one is the same as the other.
Though, even if it were a given that this extra step to address current marriages changes everything with regards to polygamy, there is still consensual adult incest to consider. Legalizing marriage between consenting adult relatives would not affect anyone’s marriage at all. Then, all we are left with is the argument that society is discriminating against people based on their relationship to each other rather than their genders.
Once marriage shifts from being about creating a healthy home for children to ‘celebrating the love of two individuals’, there is no longer the legal footing to argue that polygamy should be illegal because it’s harmful to children. Divorce is also harmful to children but it is (and will remain) legal.
Furthermore, just as there are gay couples that have raised happy, well-adjusted children, there are polygamous families that have also raised happy, well-adjusted children. Of course, these families don’t end up in the spotlight because they aren’t living in an isolated compound and marrying 12 year old girls to 50 year old men, but they are out there. Focusing on the weird, abusive polygamous groups would be the same as focusing on the Fulsom Street Fair and saying, “This is not a good environment for children.”
Far from being a slippery slope argument, I think the legal argument for gay marriage is quite easily the same legal argument to be made for polygamous marriage.
JadeNYU on April 22, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Don’t forget incestuous & inter-species marriages.
jgapinoy on April 22, 2009 at 7:30 PM
It would be a shame if the GOP chooses to die on that proverbial hill because a fiscally conservative party is definitely needed, but that’s their choice. It will probably take a generation for it to be enacted but SSM is here to stay. There will be no FMA and the state amendments will be repealed one by one over the coming years, if not eventually struck down by SCOTUS. Don’t believe me? In the comparison he makes, McCain forgets that while Schlafy won the battle against ERA she lost the war. Feminism has won through legislation and the courts, essentially gaining just about everything they wanted through ERA. Considering how the courts twist wording in the Constitution perhaps we owe a debt of gratitude to Schlafy for killing the amendment but most politicians of both sides do not dispute the major goals of equal rights for women now. About the only one that raises any angst is abortion and unfortunately a strong majority still want it to be legal, though heavily regulated.
JohnAGJ on April 22, 2009 at 7:44 PM
This is a good conversation Laura. Family, Faith, & Education are essential to a community. Having a mother and a father is so important to the children of our nation; any nation. Great powerful empires have been taken down from within throughout history, by the erosion of these three most important ingredients. The Roman empire comes to mind.
The battle of ideologies (Liberalism – Conservatism) has been going on for centuries, and will continue to take place long after I’m gone. The world turns to the left until all hell breaks loose, then turns back to the right in order to survive. The cycle just keeps on keep-n on. The marriage between a man & a woman is the foundation of a family. This will never change despite the attempts to make it so. A child is spiritually connected to his/her mother, nothing can take place to change that. That same child will always be wounded of sorts, if that child doesn’t have the father taking part in the home.
Most of the world took a hard turn to the left several decades ago, and are now coming back around to the right. America is taking a hard turn to the left, and will suffer through some really tough years before righting the ship. Conservative principles never change, do not need to change, and will be there once again for all who abandoned them when the time is right. Faith comes in many shapes and forms. Far too many people relate Faith with Church only. I have absolute Faith in my wife, and this is something she has earned. I have absolute Faith in the rewards that come with acts of kindness towards my fellow man; correcting my bad behavior as soon as I realize (capable of self honesty) that I have brought harm to something or somebody. I have absolute Faith in the values that life has blessed me with by way of learning and growing spiritually.
I’m not very good at much in life, so I try my best each day to be the best I can be at what is so easily obtainable and meaningful; be the best husband I can be, be the best father I can be, be the best son I can be, be an example to my family.
I’m not unique by any means, which is why I have faith in mankind. Millions of us gather at places such as this to share ideas, vent, & learn. I see people just like me here at HA. I see people just like me, that share the same values everywhere I go in life. I’m a Conservative man, and I’m proud to live my life with a simple set of values and principles that allow me to be successful in my home, as well as inside my own body. Inner peace comes with a healthy spirit and a clean soul. The best part of my day is when I come home to my wife and kids. Men will be saying the same thing long after I’m gone.
Once again Laura, good subject and a great post!
Keemo on April 22, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Surrender: The ultimate cop-out.
Gay activists want nothing to do with actual marriage. They want you and everyone you know to legitimize and laud their relationship. They will get their way and then they will force schools to teach them that gayness is not just an equal choice but a moral virtue.
You will surrender because you have been brow-beaten into surrender. I weep for your shortsightedness. Gay marriage has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with control. Control of school curriculum, control of right opinion, control of free speech.
Go on, you just try and suggest that homosexuality isn’t a moral virtue by default. You can already hear Perez Hilton screeching indignantly.
Ultimately I suppose it is irrelevant. America will never see the folly of our ways until we hit rock bottom, and hopefully it will not be too late.
Finally: It is illogical to point to heterosexual divorce as a reason to support gay marriage. What it means is we should destroy no-fault divorce, not enable gay marriage.
BKennedy on April 22, 2009 at 9:47 PM
Knowing some gay couples who want to nothing more than to have their partnerships recognized by the government they pay taxes to, I think your assertion is less than universal.
If there were a coordinated effort to decrease divorce I’d be more convinced of your point. I there were a coordinated effort to decrease divorce, I’d contribute to it financially and volunteer time. I think it is very much worthwhile. I don’t see stopping gay marriage as statistically meaningful toward that end.
dedalus on April 22, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Behold the new Republican strategy, concede defeat on issues, even if the majority is with us. Laura, is that an alternym for Meghan McCain?
Gay marriage is just another Trojan horse for more liberalism. The demands will not stop with gay marriage. The left wing gays do not support our constitutional rights generally speaking, they are against the right to bear arms and would love to restrict our free speech.
If we are just going to throw in the towel on every issue we might as will give the fuck up and resign ourselves to one party rule. What the hell ever happened to standing up for your convictions regardless of the popular culture? I am so disgusted with these defeatist morons like Allah and now these newbies in the Green Room who seem to be more of the same.
Why Malkin supports this shit I will never know, she stands on her convictions and half of the bloggers at Hot Air undermine them daily.
echosyst on April 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM
People who say this have not seen the pictures on the Zombietime blog of the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade.
Do a google of Zombietime blog and go read his/her entry on the SFO Gay Parade. Look at the pictures.
Then come back and tell me that you support adoption of children by gays.
I’m not buying it. Nor am I buying gay marriage. Nor am I buying civil unions. And neither should you.
pabarge on April 23, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Keemo on April 22, 2009 at 7:45 PM – THANKS, you’re too kind.
pabarge (and again, the disclaimer that I don’t support marriage in spite of some commenters reading comprehension troubles; I just think that regardless of how I feel about it, it’s going to happen and largely because of how badly heteros have abused the institution)… I’ve seen the Zombietime photos of some street fair; public sex was just the beginning. I actually intended to do a similar photo essay on Southern Decadence, a similar New Orleans festival; I had a set of photos from previous SDs I’d collected from the web and I intended to take my own set in 2005 with special attention to photos of police ignoring the goings on. I’d hoped that if the general public had any idea, they’d pressure the city council and the sheriff to put a stop to it. Katrina intervened, and I’ve been busy since then. It’s a disgrace that the city supports it and that the police don’t enforce the law during it. So I “get” what you’re saying. (I also know that ALL homosexuals don’t act like that, any more than all Christians are as lacking in actual biblical knowledge as Joel Osteen. But I digress.)
None of that comes close to seeing a dismembered baby, or a baby killed by a saline abortion. And knowing that they felt the whole process. If you haven’t seen it, please Google it. I think once you do, your opinion will change. While I can’t say I support gay adoption any more than I support gay marriage any more than I support single adoption, nor am I that keen on single parenthood generally, it’s a fallen world and we have to make choices in it. It’s better to err on the side of life.
Laura on April 23, 2009 at 1:54 AM
(Sigh.) I don’t support SAME SEX marriage.
Laura on April 23, 2009 at 2:17 AM
astonerii is right, with the caveat that cohabitation is just as bad for men as marriage.
Society has decided to penalise men for living with women. Consequently, more and more men are avoiding such commitments.
Evil Pundit on April 23, 2009 at 3:22 AM
Everyone who wants to give cogent answers to the question of WHY Gay marriage isn’t just a yes or no proposition must read this letter regarding the Connecticutt Gay Marriage legislation. Even if you are an Atheist – these reasons are so important because if religious freedoms are left exposed and bleeding – other freedoms can suffer the same plight someday. I have long employed these reasons when arguing and don’t understand why they aren’t obvious. I hate to sound cliche – some of my best friends are gay – I want them to have happy relationships with rights, but not at the expense of somrthing like Catholic Charities… Before we can have gay marriage – we have to carefully wrap our religious freedoms in cotton batting to preserve them…
djl130 on April 23, 2009 at 5:22 AM
Here is the link – sorry
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/files/letter-to-rep.-donovan-re-bill-899-04-20-09.pdf
djl130 on April 23, 2009 at 5:28 AM
As one of my Catholic friends said, “If divorce were illegal, protestant churches wouldn’t exist”.
Cheers,
Liberty Card
Liberty Card on April 23, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Just like you KNOW that Christopher Hitchens wants to kill you.
You KNOW many things.
MadisonConservative on April 23, 2009 at 9:03 AM
The problem is that we live in a pluralist Republic.
I would support opposing SSM if someone could give me a valid secular reason for doing so.
But there isn’t one.
All your reasons boil down to “because [this particular god] says so.”
strangelet on April 23, 2009 at 9:33 AM
If it weren’t entangled with a freedom of religion/hate crime legislation creep issue I truly wouldn’t care. I support two consenting adults’ right to contract as they please.
So soon as we get that thing on the California AG’s website to give everyone in the state Civil Unions recognized as marriage (essentially the same rights with a different name) I’ll vote for it. Seems totally fair while preserving the rights of religious institutions to define the term as they see fit.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
You know that is a lie, geek.
Churches can’t be forced to perform marriages of any kind they object to.
Not mixed race marriages, not divorced ppls marriages, zip, nada.
You fail.
I frickin’ hate this dishonesty.
strangelet on April 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM
However, in a Republic, the State can be forced to give equal rights to all citizens.
And you are superclueless if you don’t think that will happen eventually.
strangelet on April 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Right now, religious institutions can marry whom they wish. That doesn’t mean it will always be that way. My position is calibrated to ensure that that remains the case while granting everyone equal rights and privileges under the law.
I did not lie. So actually, YOU FAIL. You fail to grasp the issue, you fail to deal with the unintended consequences of your actions, and you fail to deal with me honestly.
Your actions imply that you desire acceptance for the gay communities behavior as moral and correct rather than merely tolerance. That’s an overstep. Just admit that you want to control what people believe and get it over with.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM
What did you do when you heard that Prop 8 had passed, hunker down and spout some variation on “I’ll get you gadget! NEXT TIME!?”
I’m all for equal rights to all citizens, which is why I support giving both gays and straights civil unions with rights exactly equal to marriage. The state should simply cease to give marriagess as a result. That’s something private organizations can provide.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 23, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Nope.
I have faith in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The mills of social justice grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.
Segregation academies and anti-miscegenation laws were wildly popular with you guys once upon a time.
I’m young…..I can wait.
strangelet on April 23, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Believe what you like in your churches.
But quit your pranching and braying in the public square.
strangelet on April 23, 2009 at 8:19 PM
I don’t care at all what you believe.
Like I said, I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You are trying to impose your religious beliefs on unwilling citizens in a Republic.
That hasn’t worked out very well for you in the past.
strangelet on April 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM
FTFY
Laura on April 23, 2009 at 11:28 PM
Both parties, Laura.
is going to be just as much of an electoral loser for you as shared racism was.
Your point is?
I think having homophobia and discrimination against minority citizens as your common cause (prop
strangelet on April 24, 2009 at 11:41 AM
LOL
prop 8 that would be.
strangelet on April 24, 2009 at 11:42 AM
First, what’s pranching?
Second, no. You won’t silence my speech.
And the accusations of homophobia are stupid and dishonest. You fail yet again.
Ministers have already been fined in several western countries like Canada and Sweden. If it could happen there, it’s not far fetched for it to happen here. Thought control is the goal of many progressives. Changing minds … by force if necessary.
Like hell you do, liar. You can’t even be bothered to interpret the thing; your justices just say what they’d like to do and find a way to rewrite the text of the Constitution so that you can manage it. Living document my arse.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 24, 2009 at 12:16 PM
prancing, sry.
I have only two things to say, Geek.
Brown vs. Board of Education.
Loving vs. Virginia.
strangelet on April 25, 2009 at 9:43 AM