The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Beginning an interesting series of posts on the marriage debate, Austin Bramwell asks: "Do marriage traditionalists really want to deny same sex couples the right to enter into enforceable agreements for the sharing of property and income? Do advocates of marriage equality really want the government telling people what marriage norms they should adopt? My answer to both questions is no."

That's true of most normal people, but I don't think it applies to the activists involved. The movement for same-sex marriage is designed to reshape marriage norms so that the broader society will be compelled to recognize same-sex couples as married. And while I think marriage traditionalists have been less interested in restricting the contract rights of same-sex couples, some defense-of-marriage amendments arguably would have that effect. Moreover, most social conservative activism on gay rights issues has been aimed at returning homosexuality to the marginal status it had as recently as the 1970s and '80s -- allowing supporters of same-sex marriage to frame the issue in a way that makes their success more likely.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/05/13/marriage-middle-grounds

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT