Same-sex marriage could help save the institution
We have witnessed the fallout from broken families as divorce and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed in recent decades. These trends have been wrought not by expanding the definition of marriage but by a general lowering of respect for the institution. Blankenhorn’s group suggests that, given Americans’ evolving acceptance of same-sex marriage, we should refocus our energies on a goal that transcends sexual orientation.
His group’s focus is on the disintegration of marriage in the middle and lower classes, which, they say, is creating a new underclass of inequality. As it happens, well-educated people tend to stay married in greater numbers, while the less educated — high school and no college — are becoming a subculture of economically depressed, single-parent families. Studies no longer need to be cited to convince us of what we know: Children from such homes have a lousy shot at the pursuit of happiness. …
In an op-ed last summer, Blankenhorn expanded on his vision: “Once we accept gay marriage, might we also agree that marrying before having children is a vital cultural value that all of us should do more to embrace?” he asked. “Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation?
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
Kathleen Parker–Is this anything like football player syndrome?
vityas on January 30, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Would that mean that we have to teach kindergartners about sex? And will we have to rewrite American history texts to overstate the contributions of homosexuals and to cast all events occurring before legalization of SSM as bigoted and unworthy of study?
I thought so.
No thanks.
BuckeyeSam on January 30, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Breathtaking stupidity.
kingsjester on January 30, 2013 at 10:12 AM
A society saved by sodomy.
*facepalm*
Paul-Cincy on January 30, 2013 at 10:13 AM
This is worthy of study. Doesn’t Charles Murray have a recent book on this?
But what in the h*ll does this development have to do with SSM?
BuckeyeSam on January 30, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Can’t wait for Parker’s thought-provoking article on the need for the polyamorous folks out there to get married – “for the children”, of course.
The Zoo Keeper on January 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Kathleen, why don’t you promote polygamy, or in your case, polyandry? Thats marriage too. And its between loved ones. The muzzies would be overjoyed, cos in their religion, a man can have 4 wives. Give ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ a chance, Kathleen.
tommy71 on January 30, 2013 at 10:17 AM
Gay marriage will make urban, minority fathers want to stay with the baby mamas? Well I’ll be…who knew you could solve an epidemic so easily.
What next, banning all guns will cause crime to disappear? Let’s get on it then.
Bishop on January 30, 2013 at 10:19 AM
The left pretty much considers marriage to be nothing more than an exclusive sex contract which can be terminated by either party at any time.
tommyboy on January 30, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Yes – Charles Murray’s new book discusses the disintegration in cultural institutions and habits in the lower and lower middle class (marriage, religiosity, etc).
I agree that SSM doesn’t really have anything to do with this trend. We don’t have a legal problem we have a cultural problem. I don’t think that laws do a good job of shaping culture – laws typically change in response to broad cultural changes.
gwelf on January 30, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Gays marrying will make heterosexual women less susceptible to the feminist push against marriage, heterosexual men less nervous about the prospect of getting screwed in family court, a reversal of the trend toward sexual promiscuity in both sexes, and improve the economy? I mean, in a culture where the Lena Dunham ad wasn’t political suicide and Sandra Fluke is actually not considered disgusting by half of the population, this is all it will take to restore the sanctity of marriage?
That’s some impressive legislation right there, if it can accomplish all that. But how come things still suck here in NY, then?
Gingotts on January 30, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Imagine what polygamy could do for urban dwellers. It’s a better fit anyway.
gwelf on January 30, 2013 at 10:23 AM
Why are we worrying about not having a mom AND dad in a same sex couple adopting a child?
hell, there’s always the GAY GAY “i like shopping spouse” and the ‘gay but i like to also play hockey and throw baseballs” spouse
blatantblue on January 30, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Maybe if gay marriages were mandatory it would fix things.
gwelf on January 30, 2013 at 10:26 AM
I guess she could make the same arguments for polygamous marriage. I’m sure Parker is all for polygamous marriage. Who is she to say which consenting adults can be married to other consenting adults?
It’s the old fashioned “one spouse only” rule that is the cause of all that divorcing.
Buddahpundit on January 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Notice how she skips over and takes for granted whether “gay marriage” is legitimate, that it’s “marriage”. And yet that’s the whole question about “gay marriage”.
Paul-Cincy on January 30, 2013 at 10:30 AM
I don’t really have any concern over the divorce rate. Most people that get divorced end up remarrying.
Plus, if you took the economic freedom and opportunities women now have, and placed them back in the 40′s, 50′s, and 60′s, you’d see a distinct rise in the divorce rate.
What bothers me is the child out of wedlock rate. That’s the real problem.
blatantblue on January 30, 2013 at 10:33 AM
The freaks are all about traditional morality when they think they can use it to advance their anti-traditional morality agenda.
yhxqqsn on January 30, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Yes and yes, but neither will have an effect on the divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates. That Ben and Ken can get married will not change the dynamics within the welfare state. Homosexuals are, generally, much more affluent than the average American household. They are far less likely to receive welfare benefits. IOW, getting married will not punish them, as it will unwed mums.
Also – and, I realise that this is a gross generalisation, which I am loathe to make and think that time may change, but… – homosexuals have, historically, been more promiscuous so the idea that SSM (which I support) is going to reduce the divorce rate and save the institution of marriage at this point is probably wishful thinking.
Resist We Much on January 30, 2013 at 10:36 AM
Mandatory for all gays or mandatory for everybody?
Can I at least pick my own dude? Wait… no, nevermind… I don’t know that I’d want to. Just as long as I end up with another guy who doesn’t particularly want to um… consummate the marriage.
Gingotts on January 30, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Marriage is dying as an institution because of the onerous economic risks and penalties marriage incurs in our society. Nothing more, nothing less.
Kathleen Parker has taken barking up wrong trees to a new level.
ElectricPhase on January 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Does someone pay her for this drivel..? What a profession..!
d1carter on January 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM
This is all a matter of definitions. Homosexuals don’t just want the legal status associated with marriage — they want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
Fine, I say. But only if I get to redefine “lesbian” to include heterosexual males. And I want conferred upon me all the special minority protection lesbians get. And I want to be able to frequent a lesbian bar and be treated exactly like all the other lesbians, otherwise I’ll whip an ACLU lawsuit on that bar so fast it’ll make your head spin.
The Rogue Tomato on January 30, 2013 at 10:45 AM
By the same token, legalizing drinking and driving would help de-stigmatize alcoholics, and probably free up jail space.
SailorMark on January 30, 2013 at 10:56 AM
Someone call the EPA. We have industrial strength stupid leaking out from KP’s cranium.
CJ on January 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Swap booze for pot and there’s the liberaltarian argument.
Much like the article, both examples are absurdity to the max. I haven’t heard an idea this stupid since I read about medieval techniques of curing someone by bloodletting.
MelonCollie on January 30, 2013 at 11:01 AM
What percentage of the population is gay? What percentage of those want to marry? What percentage of those married are going to stay married? So what she is saying is that a really tiny percentage of people will save marriage for the vast majority. Wow, the power of gay has no bounds or the power of stupid.
I think you got the wrong end. Then again maybe not because her head is so far up… Never mind. I must be civil to the intelligence challenged among us.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 30, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Believe it or not, bloodletting works as a tool to improve health, but it may have been overused. It reduces Iron and people who give blood live longer statistically speaking.
MetaThought on January 30, 2013 at 11:10 AM
I have a cousin that claims he is a lesbian trapped in a male body. Likes to dress up in all that macho men’s clothing, has his hair cut short and is always trying to score pretty girly lesbians. So far he has had no luck.
Dr. Frank Enstine on January 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM
…………
You could knock me over with a feather.
Well I guess I’ll live longer then. Too bad there’s nothing to live for.
MelonCollie on January 30, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Yeah, but with leeches! Actually, it’s the leeches I object to even now.
SailorMark on January 30, 2013 at 11:21 AM
The disease is called ‘Hemochromatosis‘ and is caused by the body’s absorption of too much iron. For most people, they simply pass iron in their urine, but those suffering from hemochromatosis, the blood iron content is relieved by semi-regular blood donations.
ZachV on January 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM
One night a bunch of us were playing a board game. I can’t remember what it’s called but at one point the question was “if you had choose to be married to a person of the same sex (or something like that), who would you choose”.
I said “Stephen Hawking”.
Do I even have to explain why?
DethMetalCookieMonst on January 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM
There’s a hereditary condition where too much iron builds up in the blood over time (hemochromatosis). It’s mostly found in Celtic peoples. I don’t know if bloodletting is good for everyone, but for people with the condition, bloodletting lowers their iron back to normal levels in the blood.
CJ on January 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Only someone with their head as far up their own ass as Kathleen Parker could fail to understand the impetus of this. This would be the Law of Unintended Consequences biting the ass of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. It is the inevitable and inescapable consequence of making receipt of government assistance contingent upon spousal abandonment.
SWalker on January 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM
I said this last week; I’ll say it again. Please go home, Ms. Parker. You’re just embarrassing yourself. Logic in this piece is on a level with the fictional varaint of how the King of Siam wanted to send elephants to the United States as a gift. The fictional part was that the king wanted to send only male elephants and figured the US would have plenty of elephants once they started breeding…
apostic on January 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM
ZachV on January 30, 2013 at 11:26 AM
CJ on January 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM
It’s not just hemochromatosis, reducing Iron levels is beneficial for almost everyone.
http://voices.yahoo.com/why-donating-blood-may-good-heart-4145573.html?cat=5
http://escholarship.ucop.edu/uc/item/6d11n20q
MetaThought on January 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM
Might as well say we’re saving marriage by legalizing polygamy, it would make more sense than this pap.
Socratease on January 30, 2013 at 11:53 AM
And naturalizing 20 million border-hopping illegal aliens will save the GOP and the nation.
Yeah, that’s the ticket!~
profitsbeard on January 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Those pretty girly lesbians are violating his civil rights, since he should be treated equally with other lesbians. I say call the ACLU and sue.
The Rogue Tomato on January 30, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Is this a new level of stupid for Kathleen Parker, or what?
petefrt on January 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Same sex marriage has a much greater opportunity to put the final nail in the coffin of the institution of marriage.
Marriage after all is an institution intended to protect the children from outside influences and defend the family in order to allow them to raise a children over several decades of stability.
Our culture, starting with politicians and the wealthy rebelled against this institution, thinking they were above it, and when they started getting divorces, the rest of the people demanded the ability to get divorces.
This process was accelerated with social security making children less valuable to people, and thus the quality of life for children was lowered to the extent that they could be mass executed in the womb, poorly educated and indoctrinated in both the classroom and the newsroom.
The lack of children in many households brought about no fault, drive through, same day divorces for the masses.
The one thing though that gives Marriage any validity is children and the needs of children, and someday it is likely society will remember why Marriage was meant to be for life and the easy divorce may be made obsolete.
But if you throw same sex partner relationships into the mix, then you throw out the purpose of marriage completely, it is no longer about the children, but all about the adults. Then there will be no reawakening and rebuilding of the institution of marriage, from here on out it will be faster deterioration.
Repeat, allowing same sex partner relationships to usurp the title of marriage will make marriage impossible to reform for the better.
astonerii on January 30, 2013 at 12:17 PM
“We had to destroy the village to save it.”
jnelchef on January 30, 2013 at 12:45 PM
I agree completely. It’s the issue that motivates most of what I say here at Hotair.
thuja on January 30, 2013 at 12:49 PM
LOL.
Why should they agree, when you’ve demonstrated that you’ll cave the instant they start calling you a hater and a bigot?
Look at gay-sex marriage sites. Not a one has anything even remotely associated with relationship-building, counseling, etc.; it’s all screaming about how anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.
The gay and lesbian community does not want marriage. It is simply a convenient smokescreen for outright antireligious bigotry and hate.
northdallasthirty on January 30, 2013 at 1:26 PM
This argument is about as brilliant as the thought that I could potentially save time by having my wife throw my baby out a 20th story window and I could catch her. Sure, it is possible it could save me time, if I actually could catch her without her getting harmed. But the more likely outcome is death.
Sure, gay marriage could save marriage. The chances it does so is about one in 10^300,000. Of course, the chances of it working to hasten the demise of marriage is about 1 in 1.
astonerii on January 30, 2013 at 3:40 PM