February 26, 2004
ANYTHING BUT NEW:
Marry or Burn: The White House's new anti-poverty program: Shotgun weddings (Beth Hawkins, 2/25/04, City Pages)
The notion that marriage is the government's business is anything but new. "In the beginning of the United States, the founders had a political theory of marriage," writes Nancy Cott in Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. "As an intentional and harmonious juncture of individuals for mutual protection, economic advantage, and common interest, the marriage bond resembled the social contract that produced government. As a freely chosen structure of authority and obligation, it was an irresistible model."Because it compelled monogamy and mutual responsibility, marriage was thought to be the bedrock of a citizenry that possessed the necessary moral capacity to create a great nation, writes Cott, a professor of history and American studies at Yale. It also formalized the ways in which wealth and property were held and passed from one generation to another.
Of course, most of the legal rights accrued to husbands, who virtually owned their wives and children. This hierarchy was thought to be fair because women were believed to enter into the bargain voluntarily and because men were supposed to support their families: "If a husband provided passably for his dependents, he fulfilled the most important requirement of his manhood in marriage, as much as a wife showed her femininity by giving evidence of obedient service."
As people without rights, slaves were not allowed to marry. Common-law marriages reflect the fact that, in addition to the parties' mutual consent, public recognition of a couple's bond defined their marriage.
Even in revolutionary times, however, there was room for divorce when one or the other spouse failed to fulfill their role. And by 1800, it was possible to divorce in almost every state in the union; several had formally spelled out the circumstances in which a marriage could be dissolved.
By the 1970s, most Americans had access to the no-fault divorce, where a marriage could be ended simply because the partners were unhappy. Divorce rates rose sharply, even as marriage rates fell. The number of households headed by unmarried couples multiplied 10 times between 1960 and 1998, and the number of unmarried adults rose. During the same time period, the divorce rate skyrocketed. Half of all marriages now end in divorce.
This trend had disturbed religious conservatives for decades. But by the mid-'90s, research confirming that children fared best in stable two-parent families had sparked a number of family social scientists, psychologists, and researchers to change their views and begin to complain that they'd wrongly put self-actualization before family unity.
It's a fairly odd criticism to say of gay marriage opponents that they don't care about divorce and other threats to the institution. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2004 2:42 PM
I agree. I understand arguments that the mushy middle consists of lots people who think that *in general* marriage should be defended, but think that their own reasons for wanting a quick divorce or whatever are good enough. (Similar to abortion).
I also understand tactics saying: "If you let the conservatives prevent gays from marrying, they'll tighten up the divorce laws, which will hurt you next." (Opposite of the slippery slope polygamy argument, though the slippery slope is IMO appropriate for legal decisions, due to precedent, but less so for legislative action.)
However, the history of things like covenant marriage movement shows that, at least for the committed conservative movement, defending marriage against divorce and other threats is certainly important.
Posted by: John Thacker at February 26, 2004 3:26 PMJohn:
And why not have straight couples who think their relationship is temporary enter into civil unions rather than marriage too?
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2004 3:53 PMDidn't Louisiana attempt some sort of special class of marriage from which it would have been harder to get a divorce?
The argument that civil unions should be for everyone isn't made because that won't help achieve the goal-- to delegitimize everything that doesn't exalt homosexuality.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 26, 2004 4:07 PMI note the irony of your caption.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 26, 2004 7:38 PMThe "threats" to marriage came from women's increased economic, legal, and reproductive freedom (exclusive of abortion); relaxation of divorce laws; and a society sufficiently rich to keep even deserted women and children from falling into penury.
Gay marriage will have no effect whatsoever on heterosexual marriage.
In much the way recognizing Creation Science would have no effect on Science.
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2004 9:27 PMJeff, have you checked in on Sweden lately where anything goes?
It might have had the effect we dread. Maybe we should pay attention.
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 26, 2004 9:29 PMSandy:
There have been many societal trends over the last 50 or so years that have substantially changed marriage. In what conceivable way will the addition of gays to the institution of marriage have anything even remotely like the impact of, say, equal protection of women under the law?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 27, 2004 6:33 AMSo, Jeff, what's your position on the argument that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq because we aren't invading North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al.?
Posted by: David Cohen at February 27, 2004 9:42 AMDavid:
No. More correctly, I would be against invading the Bahamas because companies are outsourcing IT labor to India.
Unfortunately, my previous wording failed to convey the nature of the non-sequitor.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 27, 2004 11:49 AMGeez, Jeff, I think your 6:33 analogy is the right analogy, but your conclusion is off.
The President has made perfectly clear that he wasn't looking for this fight and would have preferred to avoid it, but the fight has been carried to him by the MA SJC and the City of San Francisco. I would like us to do something about No Fault divorce, cohabitation, illegitimacy, the "hook-up" culture, etc., but the fact that we're losing those battles doesn't mean that we have to surrender here.
Posted by: David Cohen at February 27, 2004 12:37 PMI am not entirely sure David is right about Bush's not looking for this fight; but certainly he wasn't looking for a shooting war.
Kerry's statement last night that Bush is the one dividing Americans on this issue turns the facts on their head and, even if nothing else had already done so, proves him a man without a shred of honesty.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 27, 2004 1:59 PMDavid:
The voters in those states are perfectly capable of dealing with this "problem" without an all encompassing constitutionaly excresence.
But why choose the term surrender? That implies the anti-side will bear some actual cost should gays be allowed to marry. They won't. They will still be able to live their lives as they always have done.
Back to your Iraq analogy. I saw some arguments against invading Iraq that, while I didn't agree with them, well reasoned.
Look as I might, I haven't found a well reasoned argument against gay marriage.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 27, 2004 4:22 PMAs soon as I hit the Post button, I yearned for a Recall button.
There is one argument: It isn't worth the candle. To this benighted materalist, the US Constitution is approximately the holiest document ever. If pressing the fight for gay marriage risks encumbering the Constitution with some carbuncular amendment, then gays need to grit their teeth, and bide their time.
Becuase within twenty years, the US will view gay marriage as undermining conventional marriage to the same extent interracial marriage does now.
Not at all.
BTW, in the early 1900s there was an attempt to pass an amendment banning interracial marriage in perpetuity.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 27, 2004 4:27 PMThe choice is between excrescence or excreta.
Posted by: oj at February 27, 2004 4:41 PMThe choice is between bigotry and freedom.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 28, 2004 10:14 AMFreedom requires bigotry--when everything is allowed no one is free.
Posted by: oj at February 28, 2004 10:19 AMFreedom requires racism?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 29, 2004 9:35 AMMarriage has suffered from it's re-definition in the popular culture as a way for two people to find personal fulfillment in each other's company, with children being an afterthought, or an optional accessory. Most of the damage to marriage has already been done by heterosexuals. As another article above indicates, having children is increasingly being seen as an anti-social act.
Here is my solution. When two people want to wed, they have to sign a pledge to have children within 5 years. If they don't sign, they are issued a license for a civil union. If they wed and don't have children after 5 years, their marriage is legally annulled, and reverts to a civil union. Civil unions don't get any tax benefits.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at February 29, 2004 11:37 AMWell, racism is bigotry. If freedom requires bigotry, then it requires racism.
Alternatively, freedom and bigotry are antagonistic concepts. Put differently, one should be at least as careful in picking ones enemies as one's friends.
If you are going to hate someone, best to have a point. With regard to marriage and homosexuals, there is plenty of bigotry, but no point.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 29, 2004 5:02 PMRacism is bigotry, but bigotry is not racism.
It is appropriate to be bigotted against those who endanger freedom.
The obvious reason to be intolerant towards homosexuality is that it is evil.
No race is likewise evil, so racism does not make sense froim a purely democratic standpoint. So you got that much right.
Posted by: oj at February 29, 2004 5:12 PMExcept homosexuality is no more evil than heterosexuality--the moral content of any act is wholly bound in context. Any context within which a heterosexual act is moral is a moral context for a homosexual act. If heterosexuality within marriage is moral, then so is homosexuality within marriage.
You have failed to identify how homosexuality is evil, or how it endangers freedom. That the Bible says it is so seems hardly probitive, since the words are those of men, not God.
Additionally, per Psalm 19 and St. Paul in Romans God has revealed himself in nature. God has revealed homosexuals to be part of his plan, just as heterosexuals are. Your identifying them as evil seems a bit cheeky.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 29, 2004 9:05 PMThe Bible suffices, but it is evil because it is loveless and involves only the dominance and submission of one man to another, an act which degrades both and has no redeeming value whatsoever.
Posted by: oj at February 29, 2004 9:12 PMWho the heck are you to say a homsexual relationship is loveless?
Never mind your repeated assertion that homosexuals men are even thinking with the same brain heterosexual men are. Insisting their act is degrading to them is just as hubristic as insisting their relationship is loveless.
Such is the danger of unexamined ideas.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 29, 2004 9:20 PMYet it is.
Posted by: oj at February 29, 2004 9:32 PM