Rod Dreher

Lenten Observance At Allegheny College

Why Conservatives Are Losing The Marriage Battle

By Rod Dreher • February 22, 2013, 9:24 AM

A reader named Adrian posts a comment in the Huntsman thread that states the situation more succinctly than I have been able to. Emphases are mine:

I’ll give you my perspective as a young person (24) who supports gay marriage. I think there’s a fundamental disconnect between the older generation and this one, and perhaps this might help you to understand it (although I think you already do, to some extent)

Your conception of marriage, the traditional one, is that a man and a woman get married for the purpose of procreation. Marriage isn’t really about romantic love in this conception, but rather a framework for the rearing of children. If we take for granted that this is what marriage is, then I don’t think it’s bigoted at all to not have gay marriage, so long as the coupling is respected.

The problem for people my age is this: your definition of marriage was displaced prior to our lifetime. I have no memory of when that definition was true. Virtually everyone under the age of 30 has lived their entire lives under a culture that believes marriage is an expression of romantic love between two people.

So for a young person with a conservative disposition, the battle against gay marriage isn’t the same as it is for you. You’re trying to conserve something that existed in your lifetime and has since been destroyed. For a young person, there’s nothing to conserve. If the only world they know is one where marriage is an expression of romantic love, any effort to bar a group of people from that doesn’t feel like the conservation of anything, just discrimination.

It reminds me of Japanese soldiers, stranded on far away islands who continued to fight even though the war had been over for years.

My only quibble with this is that older conservatives don’t believe that romantic love has nothing to do with marriage, only that as a social institution, marriage is not primarily about romantic love, but about providing a stable environment in which to raise children.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the “nothing to conserve” point is at the heart of all this. Young Americans have been formed by a culture that informed them that marriage was about romantic love (and, it should be said, that authenticity demanded the all but unlimited freedom to express one’s desires). Traditionalist arguments make no sense to them, from their first principles.

This is why an ancient tradition — marriage as one man and one woman binding themselves together — endured for centuries, even millennia, but collapsed within 20 years. We, as a people, quit believing the things that supported the older definition of marriage. A couple of years ago, I was at a party at which I heard a young woman in her early 20s talking about planning her upcoming wedding. She said she’s looking for a church in which to get married. Neither she nor her fiancé were churchgoers, and were trying to figure out how to approach a pastor and rent the church for their wedding. It didn’t occur to her that church was anything other than a stage for her dream wedding. From what I could tell, that didn’t occur to any of her young friends, either.

I’m not saying this to criticize her, but rather to illuminate, with this one little anecdote, the vast change in the culture of marriage that has washed over us in the past 50 years. It has been widely observed that marriage in general is becoming a middle-class thing, that the working and lower classes are turning away from it, and increasingly bearing their children out of wedlock. The same shift in values that made gay marriage conceivable, possible, and then inevitable is responsible for the collapse of marriage among that demographic. This is why institutionalizing same-sex marriage makes it a lot harder to rebuild marriage culture among the poor and working classes. Marriage culture is like a river that has changed course, and left we who adhere to the traditional model an oxbow. We are trying to convince others to help us re-channel the river, but that seems not only unlikely, but nonsensical to people who just want to sail on.

Posted in Culture, Gay Marriage. Tagged culture, gay marriage, same-sex marriage.

198 Responses to Why Conservatives Are Losing The Marriage Battle

← Older Comments Newer Comments →

Anne J says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:14 pm

I would like to add my views as a liberal. I am not trying to change your minds about this issue, but rather to just explain why most Americans are deaf to conservative arguments on same-sex marriage.

First, those of us who live in larger cities have many gay friends, neighbors, colleagues and families. We see these people doing a great job raising their kids every day. By and large, the people we know are highly educated and providing a stable 2-parent home — the kind of home conservatives say people should be striving for.

And then we look at the world that conservatives say is morally superior. We learn of priests molesting children; we hear people like thrice-married Newt Gingrich lecturing people about morality; we see the high divorce rate (which straight people alone can take credit for); we read stories about children being abused and neglected by their straight parents; we see tens of thousands of children languishing in foster care (and we know that many gay parents can give some of these children good homes); we know that teenage pregnancy rates are higher in the Bible belt — so why does it surprise you that we think your beliefs about gay marriage being evil simply do not correlate with reality?

Like the commenter “grumpy realist” said, you might want to focus on cleaning up your own mess before blaming all of the ills of society on same-sex marriage.
MG says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:29 pm

Rod: “Because there was no such thing as poverty, violence, and ignorance prior to 50 years ago, when the marriage culture for black Americans began to fail, as it is now doing for the rest of Americans?”

Of course those things existed – along with a host of other cultural and social issues – none of which have to do with gay marriage.

http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/03/18/Black-women-least-likely-group-to-marry.html
Just Dropping By says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm

@ Karla: It is undoubtedly true that there are young people who oppose marriage equality, but most surveys I’ve seen put support for it among people under 30 at something in the 70% to 80% range. If that large a percentage of a demographic group support something in a democracy, it is electorally equivalent to “everyone” in that demographic group supporting it because it’s unlikely that a candidate will be able to put together a winning coalition by relying only on the 20% to 30% who oppose it.
Erin Manning says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:36 pm

What we have really lost as a culture is the idea that there is such a thing as the virtue of chastity. Marriage, in the older understanding, was closely tied in with the societal value that chastity was a good thing, worth promoting. Marriage made lawful what nature made alluring: that is, sex. How marriage made sex lawful was in requiring the couple to promise exclusivity, fidelity, and permanence of the relationship to each other in exchange for the mutual right to live together and have sexual intercourse with each other (out of which action children were largely expected, but never required, which is why the infertile and the elderly could marry). Since the law has jettisoned any requirement for permanence and exclusivity and grants divorces for infidelity only in cases where it’s clear the wronged spouse didn’t agree to such openness ahead of time, though, I don’t think we should be surprised that secular civil marriage already means nothing, and that this exact nothing is what is so appealing to gay couples.

Now, I realize that the first objection to this notion will be in the form of howls that people screwed around like tramps and gigolos all the time back when society supposedly elevated the virtue of chastity, but that’s missing the point. The point is not that society didn’t realize lots of people would pursue lust and immorality, but that society thought the results would be rather bad if everybody did, and that social pressure to practice chastity both before and within marriage could at least keep some people from procreating out of wedlock and some marriages from being torn apart by rampant and shameless infidelity. Of course, birth control changed that equation, so we can see how wrong the old notions were by the clear proof that almost nobody has children out of wedlock these days and most marriages last until the death of a spouse and…oh, wait. Never mind.

Now, of course, chastity is laughed at, virginity mocked, and virtuous and worthy parents take their fourteen and fifteen-year-old daughters for their first birth control prescription (what a special time in a child’s life, to be sure! how reassuring to know that one’s parents expect and support the idea that one has all the moral virtue of any courtesan of old!) and their sons for that all-important drugstore condom-buying trip. Concerned parents may worry if their child isn’t regularly screwing some classmate or other, and I’ve actually heard from Christian young ladies that their non-Christian relatives (many of whom belong to some Christian church or other, but who are far too enlightened to take any of that crap seriously) express deep worry to their parents if “Jane” hasn’t had sex by the time she’s 18. “Is there something wrong with her? What is she waiting for?” with the implication that the Christian parents are emotionally stunting their daughter by not encouraging her to put out for the local boys, girls, or both.

So marriage isn’t even about romantic love any more, because romantic love says to the beloved other, “I choose you, permanently, exclusively, and faithfully; I give you my body and receive the gift of yours, and no power save death alone can ever break the union which we are about to enter.” But modern marriage says, “We’ve been enjoying each other’s bodies for a while now, but we’re autonomous individuals so who knows if we’ll stay happy together. But we’re happy right now, and that’s good enough reason to throw ourselves a little narcissistic party to celebrate our special connection and demand that our friends and family show up and buy us stuff. And if we move on to somebody else in a decade or so–great! People live so long nowadays; it’d be pretty damned boring to be stuck with each other for life, and I have a feeling you’re going to be one of those demanding wrinkly beer-gut dudes in twenty years anyway, so I’ll jettison you as soon as you become a drag.” How romantic.

And that is, of course, the exact same thing that gay “married” couples want to say to each other. Nobody expects gay “marriages” to last, nobody expects them to even pretend to be faithful or exclusive, and nobody really cares, because marriage is all about The Party and The Free Government Goodies. Chastity, virtue, morality, fidelity. the unbreakable bond of matrimony–bosh. None of that matters anymore to those who bow and worship at the altar of Sex Without Consequences.
Fran Macadam says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:36 pm

Declaring homosexual pairings legally “marriage” is like that sensible legislature which defined Pi to be legally 3.

And why, like so many other things we do that can’t bear complete transparency, but demand we obfuscate, is it necessary to always use the euphemism “gay”? Just as “enhanced interrogation” or “quantitative easing” are found necessary, as if changing words changes the underlying facts.

Can an entire society evidence severe dysfunction, as well as the members of it? According to many measures, we have become dysfunctional. History is replete with examples.

But ours makes us truly the “essential nation,” if exceptionalism is the measure.

We incarcerate 25% of the world’s prison population. We invade other countries which don’t consent to becoming satrapies, make war pre-emptively and lie about our reasons. Our armies wage an amorphous forever war without borders and without democratic oversight. We occupy the globe militarily, prop up dictators who do the bidding of our elites and the taxpayers spend more for this militarism than all the rest of the world combined. We have the most invasive and intrusive domestic surveillance state the world has ever created, a Stalin’s dream. We create “investments” out of whole cloth and when the crash comes we reward the perpetrators and punish the victims. We think that celebrating homosexuality in the military is moral progress, while giving out medals for remote control assassinations from the comfort of Las Vegas recliners is too. Drones patrol our heavily militarized borders from which a 100 mile buffer exists within the country in which the Constitution is suspended. Our entertainment competes for our thrilling sensations by ever more breaking former moral barriers and celebrating the shocking and destructive, whether of violence or sex, or a toxic combination. Torture, individual and mass murder are entertainment. A permanent surplus in the millions of jobless is declared acceptable. Deficits measured in endless trillions don’t matter. A presidential candidate declares he’s written off almost half the population. The poorest are declared the villains in the economic disaster, while the wealthy captains of industry decide there’s more in it for them by offshoring their industries and impoverishing their neighbors. A nation of immigrants demonizes immigrants. Health care “reform” ends up being just another cynical mass wealth transfer to Wall Street. We consider ourselves exempt from working within the cooperative bounds of the natural ecosystem pf millions of years while permanent changes to the planet’s that will produce enormous suffering for all life
come closer.

Our “exceptionalism” could as well be along the route of deviation from the good, rather than the empty egotism and self indulgent boasting it actually is.

It seems that if it is deemed progress, rather than simply being even more evidence of our self-deceptive self-indulgence that recognizes no restraint or genuine restraint on our appetites, homosexual “marriage” must be just about the only thing that shows we actually are progressing. No wonder it mesmerizes us with its importance.
Wesley says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm

“My only quibble with this is that older conservatives don’t believe that romantic love has nothing to do with marriage, only that as a social institution, marriage is not primarily about romantic love, but about providing a stable environment in which to raise children.”

I’m not sure this is true. Federal and other government-marriage benefits are not mostly designed to help protect children. I’m not saying that they hurt or hinder children, but these marriage benefits are designed first and foremost to protect marriage as the foundational institution of our society. Remember marriage traditionally comes first and children second. And most people of all ages who are opposed to gay marriage are opposed because they are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality.
EliteCommInc. says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm

Mike,

because what I posted were love letters of old married people, I use old facetiously. It was about passion, the thrill, the longing — but, that alone is not marriage.

Because people of the same sex lack that very important component of biological design also part of the equation. And that is the point. That marriage is a compilation and removing any part of that equation from that biology and biological design is not marriage.

No one who opposes same gender relations denies that love, romance, and passion are not part of the equation. No doubt many say, that my being single, my being celibate disqualifies me from the discussion —

People who wish to dismantle the definition want something other than marriage. And I absolutely intend to say no, the definition of marriage is sound. Despite its issues. Adding people of the same sex who cannot possibly be joined as marriage is designed does not benefit that state.

In fact, the evidence, and I have provided it before, is that men and women who choose homosexual expression are routinely not monogamous, even when they are in civil unions, they continue to have multiple partners — now certainly heterosexuals have this issue, but the argument that adding another set (an unnatural set at that) is going help sustain male female marriages doesn’t really make sense.

Besides, the entire import of marriage failure is incorrect. Because marriage is still envogue and in demand. Men are women are still getting married, even they get divorced, they remarry. Marriage is not in some nose dive, it may be a bit bouncey — but it is alive and well.
Lyn Calerdine says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Adrian points out that the definition of marriage has evolved over the last 30 years. Actually the definition of marriage has been evolving throughout human history.

In traditional societies, marriages were often arranged between the parents, with no romantic love between the couple before the marriage. Reflecting the lower status of women at that time, the bride’s family frequently paid a dowry to the groom’s family. Polygamy, with men having the option to have more than one wife (but not the other way around) was common then, and remains a common practice in parts of the world today. Within the marriage, the women had few rights. Now I was married 40 years ago in an Episcopal Church because my fiancé was Episcopalian, but during the ceremony, I couldn’t help thinking that the Episcopal (Anglican) Church was founded because of disputes over marriage and divorce.

By the start of the 20th marriage had evolved substantially from the traditional model. In most western countries, marriage partners were selected by the bride and groom themselves, supposedly based upon romantic love. Even so, the women were still second class citizens. In the early 1900s, wives were generally considered the property of their husbands, as indicated in the traditional wedding vows: Husband: “To honor and protect” Wife: “To honor a obey.” The wife could not independently own property or sign contracts in many states. The husband (the male) was the leader, and the wife (female) was subservient. The man could demand sexual favors from his wife, whether she wanted to provide them or not.

Throughout the 20th century, marriage evolved towards an equality between the sexes. The property that the couple owned became “community property.” Women in marriages gained the same financial power as men. Divorce laws were equalized and recognized that the marriage could be over if the romantic love had died. And a man who forced his wife to have sex was guilty of rape. People had fewer and fewer children, so most of a long-term marriage would be time without children and the couple would be focused on each other. By the end of 20th century, marriage had become a romantic coupling to two equal partners, at least for many people.

I contend that this new model of marriage as an equal partnership is what actually opened the door to same sex marriage. After all, if the man, by nature of his sex, was the leader of the family and made most the key decisions, and the women was subservient to the man, then how would a same sex marriage work? Who would own the property and make the decisions? Who would be subservient?

But as marriage evolved over the last 100 years from male domination to new model based upon two equal partners, same sex marriage suddenly became feasible. If marriage roles are no longer prescribed by the sex of each partner, but are based upon equality, then two people of the same sex can certainly enter into that sort of marriage.

Let me strengthen that argument based upon an exception: In the US today, many traditional Christians still reject the “equal partner” model of marriage in favor of the traditional, “man is the head of the family” model, at least symbolically. And these are the very same people who most strongly reject gay marriage. As the conservative mother in rural Texas asks her gay son in the movie “Sordid Lives,” “Well are you the man or the woman?” If marriage is a partnership of equals, then that question is no longer relevant, and gays can be married as easily as straight couples.

So marriage has evolved throughout human history – and while the previous concepts of marriage were based upon asymmetric roles based upon gender, the late 20th century model is based upon a partnership of equals. And once you have a partnership of equals, then, and only then, does same sex marriage become a viable idea.
AC says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Karla-I’m sure you’re right. Those who care deeply, however, about redefining the very meaning of the word and eliminating any sexual biological necessity of “husbands” and “wives” from “marriages” are much more committed to their cause (and have lots of free propaganda assistance from a left-run culture/media/etc.) despite smaller numbers than the millions who instinctively recognize its wrongheadedness but can’t or won’t work out the reasons for it. (And when they do are childishly called names.)

Indeed, if Rod’s only “quibble” w/Adrian’s point is what he stated, I find it depressing. The separation of romantic love from the long, hard, lifetime responsibilty aspects of motherhood and fatherhood in marriage may well be true, but it’s really a side issue as to why the traditionalists are losing this fight.

Adrian, who for the purposes of the point we’ll assume is a typical and “tolerant” (as meaningful as that can be nowadays-does it have ANY meaning now? To be “tolerant” is to be fashionable in one’s opinions) representative of the mid 20s age group, states rather unequivocally that opposing homosexual marriage because of the reasons he gives would be acceptable and logical, and “not bigoted at all” as he says. The obvious implication being that opposing it for having any kind of disagreement with homosexuality and homosexual behavior (or any other non-marital sexual behavior, be it hetero, homo, what have you for that matter) is de facto UNacceptable and presumably bigoted and one gathers rather easily, in Adrian’s view, not a position entitled to any respect whatsoever.

THIS, people, is what the WHOLE debate is about. Not romance being separated from the duties of marriage. Not even the insistence of procreation being at the heart of marriage. (Which is the only way Rod’s old employers at NR will now discuss the issue) But an insistence that EVERYONE subscribe to the new laws of the sexual revolution, namely sexual progressivism or sexual relativism or whatever term you care to use, but basically, the idea that sex is all equal so long as between consenting adults and doesn’t have any higher purpose or value than the largely secular expression of romantic love between two individuals. (And even that would be disputed by plenty of gender studies profs-who would insist on possibility of romance or romantic love in orgy behavior of three or more persons).

I’d argue all sorts of problems w/this view, not the least of which is that there can be no real Joy in such a view of sex, but I won’t bother here. The point is my refusal to subscribe to this view is apparently bigoted, and I’m not worth listening to. And it’s seen as such by people like Adrian with a clear head, whose judgement is unconcerned, indeed unaware of the intolerance they’re casting. Blissfully unaware! Because it’s all they’ve ever been taught. To be judgemental about virtually any sexual behavior is “bigotry”. Period. Case closed, We Are Done. I mean this has probably been pumped into most twentysomethings by now at a practically subatomic level of unconscious instruction. (And I’m not an “old fogey” but in my early 40s less than 20 yrs older than Adrian and born well after this horrible sexual revolution started) Not to toot my side, but I AM aware that the traditional point of view is a prejudiced one, (like all important views are prejudices) albeit a prejudiced one with a longer history I am willing to defend. And because of this I also think it’s not my side that is ragingly intolerant.

All of which is to say that in my view, respectfully, Mr. Dreher’s belief is quixotic that he can help preserve SOME religious liberty in law while also allowing the culture to more and more narrowly insist upon a wrongheaded and modern fashionable view of sex, because we’ve lost that fight. It will never work. Opposing the sexual revolution en masse is necessary, not of course because anyone really cares what individual gay couples do, or because they care what the individual unmarried couples do, but because they are offended at having a virtuous standard derided as bigotry by those who are blissfully unaware of their own closed-mindedness and intolerance.

Yes, it’s still probably a losing cause. But getting hung up on the whole procreation/point of marriage argument stuff or the modern romcom view of it versus a more dutiful view is all smokescreen irrelevancy stuff to me. Just educating people on how prejudices are necessary in life and not all dissenters from Equality are nasty bigoted non-persons would be enough for me, and would cause more of a dent than these long-winded Robert George-style pieces on how and why the institution is hetero, and procreative, etc, etc.
Thomas Aquinas says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Supposing I was formed in a culture in which citrus fruits were called apples, and everyone was taught to believe that “truth.” So, everyone says that oranges are apples, and believes it sincerely. But that does not mean that they are entitled to call the oranges apples. In the same way, if one thinks that the modern idea of romantic love is the only and best way to understand relationships that have a sexual and quasi-commitment components. Fine. But it’s not marriage. That term refers to a particular natural kind, just as the term “citrus” refers to a particular natural kind.

If you want liberty–the freedom to do what you want–go ahead. But taking a term and saying it means something it does not–and forcing the entire culture and its citizens to pretend that it is so, in some cases against their deepest convictions–is an act borne of freedom. It is an active of metaphysical violence when applied to the term, and an act of political tyranny when applied to your neighbor. If you don’t see that, then you lack the capacity for critical thought.
Thomas Aquinas says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm

I meant to say “is an act NOT borne of freedom.”
The Wet One says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Wow, did I jump in on this one late.

That said…

Rod wrote:

“marriage is not primarily about romantic love, but about providing a stable environment in which to raise children”

except it’s not and it hasn’t been for a long while.

I’m fond of saying that marriage today is damaged because of stupid ideas and bad laws. I’d still say that as a witness to the interaction of the ideas of marriage and the laws. It’s been that way since about the 70′s legally and probably earlier in Hollywood and the culture. The whole “happily ever after” nonsense has been nonsense ever since it started being sold to little girls. I don’t know when that was, but it was always horse manure. Most especially for women. Same with the exclusive monogamy business, which was never the case for men, only women (something that traditionalists don’t trumpet, but I don’t find them too concerned about the truth of that matter).

Anyways, as I’ve said before, life will inevitably go on. It always does. This too shall pass. And notwithstanding my views on marriage, even I’m getting married, contrary to my misgivings and more sober thoughts on the matter. It can’t have lost all of its draw if even I’m doing it, as I think it’s simple idiocy for a man to get married in this culture with stupid ideas and bad laws about marriage. I sure hope I don’t come to regret my decision. Odds are that I won’t (at least in this country), but you never know until you know and I won’t know until I’m dead, just like Xenophon’s Socrates said more than 2,000 years ago.

Enuf about that…
EngineerScotty says:

February 22, 2013 at 2:59 pm

[Note from Rod: Because there was no such thing as poverty, violence, and ignorance prior to 50 years ago, when the marriage culture for black Americans began to fail, as it is now doing for the rest of Americans? -- RD]

One of the disasters that befell black America writ large in post WWII, was the destruction of many communities. Many thriving black neighborhoods–functional, even though full of poverty–were forcibly demolished in the name of progress and slum-clearing. In some cases this was intentional–here in Portland, the southern end of the historically-black Albina neighborhood was bulldozed back in the 1950s, unofficially so white Portlanders living downtown could get to the newly-constructed Lloyd Center without passing through a black neighborhood. In other cases, this was simple misguided attempts at improvement–it was thought that subsidized housing projects would be a better place for people to live than the dilapidated communities that they replaced; a supposition that turned out to be horribly wrong.

Poor white America has been similarly getting the back of the hand in recent years, as mechanization of agriculture and outsourcing of industry has deprived many small towns and rural areas of an economic base.

So yes–many social norms break down in the face of high levels of social dysfunction and generational poverty. When young men cannot find decent work, they often turn to things like street crime, hustling, violence (including political violence)–and lose interest in things like raising families (while maintaining loads of interest in sex). Liberal attitudes may further enable this behavior; but in the economic strata where people still have good prospects for a better future and aren’t worrying about the rent or their next meal, this sort of gross dysfunction simply is not commonplace, despite liberal attitudes towards sex.
MBunge says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm

“Instead of picking as a comparative example a wonderful, social conservative couple with a wonderful marriage, they choose Rush, who failed to have one life-long marriage.”

You’re willfully missing the point of the comparison.

If rules are going to be enforced, they have to be enforced for EVERYONE. I like to say that rules don’t have to be good or even make sense. They just have to be fair. And it is absolutely not fair to demand or insist that a particular standard of sexual/matrimonial behavior be required of homosexuals while allowing heterosexuals to flagrantly violate that standard without any legal or social consequence at all.

If social conservatives as a whole, or even just a simple majority, were consistent in demanding that people like Rush Limbaugh abide by Biblical morality, they’d at least have a certain moral authority and logical consistency on the subject of gays getting married. But they don’t, so they don’t.

Mike
M.B. says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Why are conservatives losing the marriage battle? Because they chose the wrong battle.

Your correspondent’s explanation is probably right on some level (and wrong on others, as previous posters have elucidated).

But…I think the problem is the issue itself, and the fact that conservatives, not liberals, “chose” this issue. Liberals (gay/lesbian or not) 20, 30 years ago were kind of “eh” about same sex marriage. And, this being a democratic society that generally moves in the direction of granting more rights to more citizens as time goes on, the cause progressed, and reached today’s state of critical mass in favor of SSM.

But it was conservatives who decided, belatedly, that SSM is the “rubicon”–that it represents the entire litany of insults against “traditional” marriage…promiscuity, divorce, childlessness, etc…

You guys only chose to stake out a position on an issue that deeply affects a segment of the population that you, Rod (if not folks like Heather) have repeatedly said you don’t think are inherently deserving of discrimination of marginalization. I mean, despite all the hysterical posts about misguided university LGBTQ groups et al, the very clear fact is that ordinary everyday partnered gays/lesbians aren’t doing anything to deserve the raw deal they’re getting with regard to taxes, benefits, immigration policies, etc.

If you had picked something more directly marriage related (oh gosh, there are so many…friendship, mutual respect, endurance and hard work, benefits to children, etc. etc.) the conservative stance as a starting point in terms of “defining marriage” would seem a lot more reasonable and sympathetic to a lot more people. You know, like if 20 or 30 years ago conservatives were talking about how husbands should treat their wives as equals, or spoke openly about the rise of extramarital affairs in families in the 1950s.

I mean, why would you take the gender difference for granted but not all of those other incredibly important, tenuous aspects of the relationship, that, when they break down (and they so often do) affect gazillions more families than SSM ever does/did/will?

As it is, using gay folks as a scapegoat for all of your own failures to define marriage in a more family and community centered way just seems kind of petty and cruel. Which, I’m sure, for the younger generation, is another fatal strike against that position.
SusanKG says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:15 pm

I have a very un-romantic view of the history of marriage. Although marriage was certainly an institution for promoting the rearing of children, it was much more than that. It was an institution used to economically support women when women had little opportunity to support themselves. Unfortunately, women gave up what limited legal or economic rights they had as single women in order to marry. It was the ultimate catch-22.

Coverture existed from colonial times through most of the 19th century in the U.S. (and most everywhere else in the world that based its legal system on the common law system.) A married couple were considered one person under the law, and that person was the husband. The wife had no legal identity, as it ceased upon marriage. Under these circumstances, marital rape was legal, children were effectively the property of the husband, and women had no ability to own or manage her own property. Despite the obvious negatives of this arrangement, marriage was often the only or best option women could aspire to (as any Jane Austen fan is familiar with). Rather than a child-centered institution, I think it is more accurate to say from a legal perspective that marriage was a husband-centered institution.

Divorce increased with the civil and legal emancipation of women. We are still adjusting to the radical changes resulting from the change in women’s roles in the past century (the 19th amendment is not even 100 years old).

When women because full legal partners, the ontology of marriage changed, at least in the Anglo-world. And no one is going to put that genie back in the bottle.
MBunge says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:17 pm

“It is an active of metaphysical violence when applied to the term, and an act of political tyranny when applied to your neighbor. If you don’t see that, then you lack the capacity for critical thought.”

So, to be clear…

Letting people live their lives and marry whom they wish = metaphysical violence and political tyranny.

Denying some people rights that other people have and forcing them into 2nd class status as citizens = ?

Mike
Matt in TX says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm

But it was conservatives who decided, belatedly, that SSM is the “rubicon”– that it represents the entire litany of insults against “traditional” marriage…promiscuity, divorce, childlessness, etc…

Gays are a small minority. Way easier to take on than the 96-97% of folks who aren’t gay.

That’s all you need to know to understand why gay marriage is the Rubicon it is for social conservatives, as opposed to all those other things.

The “scapegoat” is a necessary ritual element in probably all societies.
Richard M says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm

Hello Anne,

First, those of us who live in larger cities have many gay friends, neighbors, colleagues and families. We see these people doing a great job raising their kids every day.

Well, I know some, too.

Hardly any are married, even in jurisdictions where they can be married (or joined in civil unions).

Of those, hardly any of have children. And it is far from clear to me that those children are experiencing a healthy upbringing, no matter how much money their parents make.

…and we know that many gay parents can give some of these children good homes

In fact, we know nothing of the sort, and I refuse to grant that point.

But your point that many heterosexuals have done almost all the work of damaging marriage – no argument here. And too many churches have been reluctant to speak out on these problems.
Geoff Guth says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Erin Manning has a very fine discussion about how premarital chastity is what makes marriage alluring and romantic. I heartily endorse this: unrestrained sex kills romance, makes love much harder. It’s all about the orgasm without the connection, focused on the self rather than the other. (And this realization comes to me late, through personal experience)

One small quibble: She wrote, ‘Nobody expects gay “marriages” to last, nobody expects them to even pretend to be faithful or exclusive…’

I do. Does that count for anything?
dcs says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm

It stands to reason that in a society where sodomy is called “sex,” sodomite unions would be called “marriage.”
Carlo says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm

Geoff Guth:

“Frankly, I find the gender of the characters and the performers irrelevant. It’s rather the overwhelming sense of loss that dominates the scene, and that’s an experience common to all couples, gay and straight.

That’s what you’re arguing against.”

Don’t be silly. What I am arguing against is whether all those nice feeling have anything to do with the granting of marriage licenses down at the county building.
Roger II says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:51 pm

I read the comments of traditionalists like Erin Manning and Heather and wonder if they live in the same world I do. In my world, couples get married hoping to spend their lives together and many (but not all) do. I’ve ever heard anyone — gay or straight — say they were getting married so they could have some awesome sex for a couple of years and then get divorced and move on. The whole “sky is falling” point just seems hyperbolic to me.
Jonathan M says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm

Conservatives are not losing the marriage battle. They’ve already lost it. We are just waiting for enough of the old generation to pass away, literally.
KC says:

February 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm

If marriage is for stable homes for children, what to do about traditional married men like Catholics Marino & Domenici who refuse to wear condoms with their young mistresses & father illegitimate children?

Should the men divorce their wives [like Domenici's who had cancer & bore him 8 children, 1 seriously ill] & leave them to marry the young mistresses so the illegitimate child is raised in a stable home? What if his children with his wife are still at home? If his wife is ill?

Should the philandering husband abandon his wife, break up his home because all children should live with their married parents in a stable home?

If a loyal, loving faithful wife who has raised children with him can be dumped because her husband believes he must break up their home because marriage is primarily for children & their kids are now grown & he has children with a mistress-whose family, traditional values are these?

What do you do with the men who father multiple children with multiple mistresses, without polygamy he can’t marry them all & provide a stable home!

So which is it:

Marriage is a lifelong, sacred, commited relationship.

or

If you have children with a mistress, you divorce your wife & marry the mistress because marriage is for raising children.

Divorce the older infertile wife & marry the young mistress because marriage is for raising children?

Doesn’t sound like traditional marriage or values to me!
alex says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Erin Manning: “Nobody expects gay “marriages” to last, nobody expects them to even pretend to be faithful or exclusive[.]”

Ms. Manning, I’m not sure how you came to speak for everyone, but I assure you, that is not the case.

Your persistent, obvious disgust with homosexuals suggests a sulfurous heart; I pity you.
senor says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:12 pm

I feel incredibly sorry for the young person who Rod quotes. The fact that they have no conception of marriage as being anything other than a contract between two people who want to, ahem, F—-, means an immense failure of family, and even more important, religion. Among other things, religion teaches us what not to do. Without it, there is no civilization. The vacuum in this young person’s life is immense. I wish I could blame her (or him) for the age of barbarism they are ushering in, but I can’t. It is my generation which enabled her (or him) by its acts of destruction.
grumpy realist says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:12 pm

Actually, in regards to Papapgeno and Papagena’s little duet at the end of the Magic Flute, I read an analysis of the opera pointing out that in Mozart’s analysis this would be considered the standard result for someone who remains “unenlightened” (which Papageno definitely is!)–someone who falls back into the common, ordinary life and can only find happiness in propagation, rather than reaching the wisdom of the spheres…

Interesting interpretation. I wonder how many people think “oh, the way I’ll leave my stamp on the world is by having kids.”
EngineerScotty says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Olsen and Boies file a withering brief in the Prop 8 case now before the Supreme Court.
senor says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:16 pm

I apologize for not reading Rod’s posting more carefully and seeing that “Adrian” was the person he quoted. My mistake.
grumpy realist says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Oh, and Erin? I don’t think that chastity was ever taken to be that important for men. Witness the Victorian Era, with all the brothels everywhere. Men were considered to have “needs”. When was the last time that the Catholic Church harangued men of the upper crust in NYC about their mistresses? I’ll bet it was never.
EB says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Marriage means different things within a secular context and a religious context. Sometimes, the secular context is even somewhat more restrictive than the religious (for example, in the countries where religion allows polygamy but the state does not). I somewhat prefer the way that marriage is seen in the context of faith, but I cannot impose that preference on others of other (or no) faith.
Rambler88 says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:19 pm

Heterosexual marriage is an institution that evolved in a mindless and impersonal world, a world in which humans had to create for themselves a space for humanity. Procreation is the basic element. Homosexuality is by this definition excluded. Heterosexual marriage, with the most basic institutions and prejudices that accompany it, thus has the status of hard-won and thoroughly tested wisdom about the world. That status will not be impaired by the local aberration of one suicidal generation.

Romantic love is an excellent, subjectively wonderful, but ultimately secondary phenomenon, a side effect of consciousness. It can’t be effectively put in its place by exponenents of other such secondary phenomena, including religion. Especially religion, in fact, because, while romantic love is strictly confined to two people in a particular relationship, religion claims to legislate for all people in all relationships. Religion is thus vastly inferior to romantic love in basic, commonsense credibility–this by virtue of its megalomaniac pretensions.

The contribution that religion (or “faith”, as Christians and Moslems understand it) makes to the debate over the gay agenda is analogous to the contribution made by groups of people kneeling on the deck to pray during a shipwreck, thereby preventing anyone from manning the lifeboats.
Travis says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:21 pm

The obvious implication being that opposing it for having any kind of disagreement with homosexuality and homosexual behavior (or any other non-marital sexual behavior, be it hetero, homo, what have you for that matter) is de facto UNacceptable and presumably bigoted and one gathers rather easily, in Adrian’s view, not a position entitled to any respect whatsoever.

You are correct – the position that homosexuality is inherently wrongful is not entitled to any respect whatsoever. Caucasians are genetically superior, mixed-race marriages are evil, and husbands are entitled to rape their wives – all are also positions held by people over time, and none of them are entitled to any respect whatsoever.

You are, of course, entitled to hold any opinion you wish about homosexuality, and to freely express such an opinion. I respect the cultural basis under which your opinion was formed, and I recognize the biases from which they originated. But I am under no obligation to consider your opinions meaningful or valid, nor am I required to offer “respect” for your ideas.
Leslie Fain says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:23 pm

Anne said:
And then we look at the world that conservatives say is morally superior. We learn of priests molesting children; we hear people like thrice-married Newt Gingrich lecturing people about morality; we see the high divorce rate (which straight people alone can take credit for); we read stories about children being abused and neglected by their straight parents; we see tens of thousands of children languishing in foster care (and we know that many gay parents can give some of these children good homes); we know that teenage pregnancy rates are higher in the Bible belt — so why does it surprise you that we think your beliefs about gay marriage being evil simply do not correlate with reality?

I see where you are coming from, but I do want to make a few points, with which you may or may not agree. First, it bothers most conservatives I know a great deal that the divorce rate is so high,and yes we have no one to blame but us straight people for it. However, who is to say the overwhelming majority of the stable gay families you know right now will not be in the very same boat straights are with regard to divorce in just a few years? After all, gay marriage and family life is pretty new. Surely you are not implying gays are morally superior or better able somehow to stay married than straight people. That is what it sounds like, though.

You could provide stats that prove otherwise, but I am not so sure that pregnancy rates are higher in the South. I read or heard recently that it is not that the teenage pregnancy rate is higher in the South, but that in blue states, tge teenage abortion rate is higher. Maybe Southerners just have more scruples about killing prenatal children.

As for priests abusing children, are you saying no gay priests were involved in any of that?
Ken Zaretzke says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:29 pm

It doesn’t help the cause of traditional marriage that the main anti-SSM argument (the John Finnis/Robert George one) is closely tied to a sexual morality in which oral sex between opposite-sex partners is as morally wrong–and for the exact same reasons!–as homosexual sex. No wonder young people are abandoning ship. How about defending traditional marriage without recourse to any sexual morality, much less an increasingly counter-intuitive one? It can be done–easily.

Conservatives are sticking their heads in the sand on this. It could end up leading them to defeat.
EliteCommInc. says:

February 22, 2013 at 4:58 pm

Mike,

let me know when Mr.Limbaugh decides to he’d like to marry another man . . . my response will be the same. Impossible.

Let me know when he decides to steal, have an affair, sex out of wedlock, commit murder etc.

How black populations are related to same behavior is beyond me. I just need a link as to relevance.

What braw deal are tyou talking about? even heterosexual nonmarried couples are denied the same. The law is not singling out homosexuals who choose this lufestyle — th community is living under issues which have nothing to do with the law . . . Always the complaint couched in some emotioinal angle as to the alw — but there is no evidence. Just how are those who choose this form of expression being singled out? Please provide the examples as to the law. Not about how joe smith made you feel. You parents, your church, your school chums, the law.
JonF says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:03 pm

A quick comment:
I suspect this is not a generation thing at all, but a regional thing, ultimately sourced in the long-ago differences of aristocrat and commoner.
I’m the same age as Rod– 46th birthday in three weeks. But I grew up thinking that marriage was (ideally) about romance– not children. When SoCons started claiming it was about children the idea struck me as being as outlandish as gay marriage did when first I heard that broached in the 90s. No one in my childhood suburban Michigan neighborhood, or church, ever talked about marriage that way. And in fact going back in time I suspect a lot of people in 1920, or 1860 for that matter, would have agreed: marriage is about love. You need only read the romantic literature of the past to see that.
The difference between me and Rod is not a generational difference– it’s where we grew up. As with some other differences we’ve had I suspect this is a North vs South thing. And indeed, there a Southern book, written in the 30s and taking place in the 1860s, that alludes to it– Gone With The Wind of course. Early in the book Scarlett insists to her father she will marry for love, and her father disapproves of the idea: that’s a common, trashy, Yankee notion he tells her.

Going back even further, people who considered marriage to be chiefly about children were people concerned about titles and inheritances. Kings and nobles did concern themselves mainly about having legitimate heirs with their wives, who could be ugly, insipid, unromantic creatures as long as they had kids (preferably several, especially boys). This I would posit where our North-South split in opinion comes from: the South inherited a great many aristocratic ideals from Olde England, which we Yankees rejected, preferring our anti-aristocratic commoner ethos instead. Marry-for-children rather than for love is possibly one of them.
Heather says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:06 pm

“Instead of picking as a comparative example a wonderful, social conservative couple with a wonderful marriage, they choose Rush, who failed to have one life-long marriage.”

MBunge says: You’re willfully missing the point of the comparison. If rules are going to be enforced, they have to be enforced for EVERYONE. I like to say that rules don’t have to be good or even make sense.

If a rule isn’t good, then there is no purpose in having it. I think you are missing the point about why we should have rules. People with a homosexuality problem are not like people without a homosexual problem, so nothing applies equally nor it should.

Only the people who are solely basing their objection to homosexual marriage on the Bible and not insisting on Biblical morality regarding other issues can be criticized of inconsistency. People who base their objection to homosexual marriage on the Bible, because they also object to other types of immorality as per the Bible, have all the moral authority they need, along with logical consistency – like Dan Cathy of Chick-Fil-A and a million other socons.

I think you are missing the larger point: liberals do not want to demand morality and they effectively do not demand it. Look at the content of porn. Liberals have therefore no basis whatsoever to criticize those Christians who only demand some forms of morality. Liberals aren’t even in a position to criticize people who demand no morality, because that’s exactly their position. Morality is “bigotry” and something to do away with, according to liberals.
EliteCommInc. says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Always the twist, and I have to admit I have reached a point finally of some animus. Civil unions apparently provide all the legal structures . . . and still you complain.

You can hold hands openly in the military. You have been all over the screen large and small. You have been teachers. You had freedom of movement when blacks did not . . .

Come on let’s have a heart to heart … you have chosen to operate other than you were designed, how is that my care as to the law? You are not slaves. You have been doing your own thing since you were — well you.

And in the last thirty years or so, doing so quite openly. Those who assault you are prosecuted. Nothing you are designed to perform is denied you — even that for which you were not designed is denied you —

I fail to understand the legal challenge here.
EliteCommInc. says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:13 pm

No what is petty is the continued whine, that you should be marrried when you don’t meet the parameters for marriage. That is petty. There was no great outcry from religious faith practitioners when that occurred . . .

yet still the complaint . . . I cannot imagine anything more petty than acquiessing to the legal protections claim and that not being enough.

The only reason that the ypung think as they do is that conservatives were foolish enough to leave the educational community to liberals. They have heard no other voice but that constant drone about discrimination which has yet to be demonstrated — and still I wait. It took less than an hour for me to dismantle a the constructs he had been fed . . . less than an hour to bring a fresh light and at no time did I have to refer to any name calling . . . imagine that.

Never once having to slur those I was opposition to. Never once having to advocate that they should be denied anything – save that for which they fail to meet the definition for.
Adrian says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Not sure if he’s referring to himself, but, if he is, it must be pointed out that a person who has the modern view of marriage does not have much of a conservative disposition.

I don’t know that I like a strict reading of traditional marriage, but I do believe that the modern view of marriage is broken. I come from a broken family, and I’ve seen with my own eyes how faulty the modern view of marriage is – my parents married after a few years of cohabitation, coinciding with the birth of my older sister. I have no doubt that they had romantic feelings for one another, but they lacked any higher notion of shared sacrifice for one another, that much was always apparent to me. They were individuals first, never really a unit.

I’d like to think that I’ve grown up pretty well adjusted, but looking back I can easily see how the way I was brought up could have very easily left me a pretty messed up adult.

I’ll be married in about five months from now, and I love my fiance. Do I follow Christian rule in my relationship? No, because neither of us are Christian. But I do think that I take a traditional view of marriage in that I consider my commitment to be much greater than professing my romantic love for her. And if the fleeting feelings of romance are ever dimmed, I’ve resolved to maintain my commitment to her forever. I intend to have children with her, and I intend to extend that love and commitment to my children when I have them. These are not merely choices I’m making, they are obligations and responsibilities that can’t be broken once they are made.

I don’t know what it is that separates my view from a traditional view of marriage. I also don’t know why it would make any difference if I had said “he” or “him” instead of “she” or “her.”

The fact is that gay people exist. That homosexual desire exists on a non-negligible scale is not some recent cultural invention. What purpose is there, exactly, in trying to change people into something that they are not, in order to make them fit into your ideal world view?

And if you don’t wish to change them into something they aren’t, then what role do you expect them to play in society? I prefer one where they raise families, and love their children and sacrifice for their children in every bit the same way people have done for thousands of years.

Is my disposition conservative? I think it is. You’re free to draw your own conclusions.
EliteCommInc. says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:20 pm

And just it’s clear all this pining and whining about people who know people who choose this lifestyle — uhhhmmm.

I love the music of Billy Joel, Annie Lennox(and so hot) but if they come and ask, I will say as I have any friend or other who chooses this expression:

“I love love love ya. Don’t want any harm to come to you. Appreciate our relationship. Wow . . . and duh music . .. Kowabooonga!!!

But I disapporove of your attempt to marry someone of the same sex. You are not designed for it.”
Bobby says:

February 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm

I find it interesting that Rod blames this change in marriage on the “culture.” Let’s not forget that conservative Christians were generally complicit in this change. I’ve been to a number of evangelical marriages, and most of them have a tenor that suggests that romantic love is at the center of marriage.

Further, an increased focus on indivual rights has not been all bad. For example, the focus on individual rights led people to fight against corrupt institutions, such as Jim Crow in the segregated South. It also led to the growth of evangelicalism, as people felt free to abandon the establishment churches of the Protestant mainline.

The loss of traditional marriage is perhaps a downside. But it’s not like we can unring that bell. So, I see no reason why we should refuse to recognize gay marriages merely because it violates a social construct that we tossed away 50 years ago. In that sense, opposition to SSM looks a lot more like invidious discrimination than anything else.
Ampersand says:

February 22, 2013 at 6:27 pm

“If social conservatives as a whole, or even just a simple majority, were consistent in demanding that people like Rush Limbaugh abide by Biblical morality, they’d at least have a certain moral authority and logical consistency on the subject of gays getting married. But they don’t, so they don’t.”

That’s exactly it. As I said in the Huntsman thread, there are two ways to for conservatives to go about creating a more sexually-traditional world:

1. Take on the key part of the issue, which is heterosexual in nature. Sex before/outside of marriage, divorce, single parenthood, etc. Bring back all the old laws and shaming customs. Doing this would be an honest attempt at addressing the issue, but it would also be political suicide for the GOP. Too many voters would feel like they were being singled out/persecuted.

2. Take on the symbolic part of the issue, which is gay marriage/gayness in general. Doing this won’t do anything to help the tons of straight people that are having family issues, but it will rally the base and get you votes, and it will be much safer than Option #1.

We all know which option the Republicans (and conservatives in general) have chosen. It’s a lot easier to beat up on a symbol than to institute social change (or un-change) that would infuriate the voters you’re trying to win.

Incidentally, there are only three ways to sell a policy to the American public, and anti-gay-marriage doesn’t fit any of them. The people of our great nation can be convinced by the following trio of things: a case for expanding freedom, a case for fairness, and a case for self-interest. We hate it when someone’s freedom is restricted, and we hate it when we encounter hypocrisy and unfairness. Conservatives are trying to convince the public to support a policy that’s unfair, less free, and that doesn’t affect them personally. Good luck with that.
J DeSales says:

February 22, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Look, I’m all for arguments about how decadence causes the downfall of civilizations, even if they’re usually sort of… iffy historiographically, but why is same sex marriage THE decadence issue. I feel like Christians should be more upset by usury or our consumer culture and old school conservatives should be concerned with demagoguery and the failings of a liberal education. As it is, conservatives have made a golden calf of capitalism and if you are unwilling to strike out at wealth and material excess as decadence, I don’t see how you have a foot to stand on (I understand that you, Mr. Dreher, aren’t too fond of the consumer culture, but you seem to like capitalism).

Herodotus did not say that the Persians (after conquering Egypt) fell into decadence because men started having sex with men, but because of luxury and excessive wealth. Tacitus did not think the Romans were decadent because of the pederasty, but because they had lost a warrior ethos and austere lifestyle. I suppose Christian authors pointed to sexual practices, but often only as a point within the general excess of decadent societies. I would have a great deal more respect for anti-same sex marriage people if they also decried wealth and possessions, if they actually prompted the wealthy to give all their goods to the poor and live a Christ-like life, but they do not. They wish to maintain a decadent society, but just get rid of some of the sex, and that seems hypocritical.
Erin Manning says:

February 22, 2013 at 6:34 pm

Not a sulfurous heart, Alex, just a mind that pays attention to and retains what it reads.

I’ve read lots of writings from within the gay “marriage” agenda. Guess what? Most gay “marriage” activists admit that their concept of “marriage” as it involves same-sex couples is going to be open to sexual encounters outside the “marriage” and that, yes, just like gay relationships generally the average gay “marriage” will last less considerably less than a decade–but that’s a feature, not a bug. Sure, the fake heterosexual “marriages” that last a week fall in this same category, but I don’t see how adding couples known for their relationship instability to an already crumbling mess is going to make things better.

Gay activists think it’s time to toss the idea of monogamy out of marriage as well–or, rather, to redefine “monogamy” to mean “only the amount of extramarital sex we agree to, or the amount we can get away with without the other person finding out.” I guess when you start redefining marriage all other terms related to it are up for grabs, too.
Erin Manning says:

February 22, 2013 at 6:47 pm

Geoff, that was nice of you. Thanks.

But when I said that nobody expects, etc., I’m using the same argument that confuses Roger II above. It’s not that people don’t make plans based on love, fidelity, commitment, etc., but that our society’s notion of marriage makes all of those concepts into rather pie-in-the sky fantasy notions that have nothing to do with the present-day understanding of the institution.

As someone in a Catholic marriage, I know perfectly well that my marriage is not dissoluble in the eyes of the Church (and trust me–no grounds for annulment!). That means something. Specifically, it means that divorce would be a grave sin under all but the most extreme circumstances (even then, it would be a sin for the party causing the circumstances), and neither of us would ever be free to contract another valid marriage if we did divorce. If we attempted marriage outside the Church that marriage would be a fake, a thin civil veneer over the ugly sin of adultery, a way of making the journey to eternal damnation look nice and civilized. We both knew that going into this, accepted it fully, and wouldn’t have had it any other way. Luckily after almost 18 years of marriage we’re still absolutely crazy about each other–but no, it’s not luck after all, but the grace of God and the outpourings of the graces of the sacrament of holy matrimony.

So when I say “Nobody expects, etc…” what I mean is simply that outside the Catholic Church (and perhaps a few other religious groups) nobody expects marriage to be permanent because marriage is easy to break. If I buy a diamond ring, I expect the diamond to last. But if I call a ring a “diamond ring” even though the stone is made of glass and these particular rings have a rather grim 50% shatter rate (and rising), I can say all I want to that I hope the stone will remain intact, but I can’t pretend that I expect it to, or that permanence is even one of this ring’s features.
EliteCommInc. says:

February 22, 2013 at 6:56 pm

Well Adrian let’s start with some correct assumptions. Just who in any post has contended that their efforst are to change the homosexual choice?

I don’t hear anyone arguing that this group should change.

Bobby, of course romance is a part of pair bonding, but it is not the only thing, the social construct is grounded in: a universal, biological dynamic of people of different sexes in which the couple offers something unique to the community.

To single out this part or that part and say that is marriage is simply untrue.
Dakarian says:

February 22, 2013 at 7:05 pm

I will admit, this helps to demonstrate the issue I have with the anti-SSM debate even after reading many of these articles: How exactly can you attack SSM without a religious context?

I will take a step above the quoted item. Marriage has not only been ‘something you do with someone you love’ but the idea of marrying for other reasons was discouraged. Marriage ‘out of duty’ is what villains in stories do to the heroes before the heroes escape, find each other, fall in love, and get married. At best, when we get older, we learn that it takes more than just love (commitment, drive, faithfulness, ext) but love is still the centerpiece. As such, marrying just for children sounds like a horrible, soulless grouping AND a horrible setting to raise children under.

If marriage is for procreation, does that mean that couples that can’t have kids should break up? It would be a traditional aspect of marriage: in some cultures, women were abandoned if they couldn’t conceive (or another woman was added). Shouldn’t we be stopping or breaking up couples where one can have a child but the other can’t?

Another thing to consider: the whole ‘people ditching marriage and having kids outside of marriage’ matter. According to population statistics, it doesn’t seem the case. Instead of ditching marriage and having kids, they are ditching marriage and kids. Marriage, at least, can be seen in a ‘two people living their lives together because it’s so hard to live alone.’ If we force marriage to be ‘about kids’ then since too many aren’t having kids then the answer is that almost no one should be getting married.

If the matter is traditional then who’s tradition? Polygamy is a very traditional form of marriage. Should that be allowed? If not then why we were allowed to change it to 1 and 1 but can’t change it again?

If it’s a matter of ‘right and wrong’ then still under what grounds? Again, we’re assuming nonreligious context. If it’s ‘society’ then that’s rule by majority and it’s showing that the majority is turning towards SSM. If it’s based on ‘traditional right and wrong’ then we’re at the same argument as ‘traditional’.

In the end, it’s the point of that quote: There’s at least one, perhaps two, entire generations that have not been taught the ‘traditional view of marriage’ the way it’d being defended now. That takes away the entire ‘tradition’ as it’s similar to someone from another country telling me why it’s ‘traditional’ to bow when greeting someone. The result is that the anti-SSM message is “Here’s my view on marriage.’ It’s proving VERY difficult to explain why that view SHOULD be the ‘proper view’.

Btw, the ones that declare doomsday or vilifying the other side (“This is the end of America!” “Those people also want endless sex, STDs and adultery!”) aren’t exactly helping the case either. It just helps to solidify the other stories we heard of growing up, about how “Rock and roll” and “black people” were going to destroy America.