-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Jeff Goldberg’s response to my post about gay “marriage equality” is substantive, thoughtful, and engaging, and for that I thank him.
Still, Goldberg cannot resist the urge to snidely mock, with unbecoming putdowns, those of us who genuinely think that same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage.
“Red Alert! Your Marriage Is In Danger from the Gays” reads the headline of his post. “The gays are coming to steal your marriage,” he tweets.
Again, the upper-middle-class cultural elite who are happily married with children needn’t worry. It is young people who are not married — and especially disadvantaged youth, who lack the same social, economic, and cultural capital as Goldberg — about whom we must be concerned. Because for them, the institution of marriage has become increasingly passé, undistinguished, and decoupled from parenting.
The problem with gay “marriage,” obviously, is not that gays will marry; it is the cultural lesson that non-gays will learn from its legitimization — which is that marriage and children don’t necessarily go together; so, if you have or want children, why bother with marriage?
Unfortunately, this is not some fanciful or far-fetched idea; it has been borne out, as Stanley Kurtz has observed, by the experience of Scandinavian countries which already have traveled down this path. Kurtz writes,
Americans take it for granted that, despite its recent troubles, marriage will always exist. This is a mistake. Marriage is disappearing in Scandinavia, and the forces undermining it there are active throughout the West…
A majority of children in Sweden and Norway, [for instance], are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents.
Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood…
“In effect,” concludes Kurtz, “Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in.”
In the United States, meanwhile, more than 40 percent of children, and nearly half of Hispanic children, are born out of wedlock. This ought to alarm the pundits and the politicians.
David Frum and other conservatives recognize this problem, but refuse to see it linked in any way to “gay marriage.” They are, I think in willful denial. These conservatives see that public opinion, especially amongst the young, has shifted; and that fighting to retain the exclusivity of traditional marriage may be politically difficult if not untenable.
I share this (political) concern, but cannot escape the fact that undermining traditional marriage with so radical a notion as same-sex marriage will harm future generations, and especially children.
One final point: Goldberg cites his own personal experience with gay friends and colleagues to argue that gays are embracing marriage and parenting, and doing so with gusto.
“Doesn’t this endorsement of marriage by people who have been excluded from marriage suggest something wonderfully traditional and stabilizing about this moment?” he writes.
“That’s what gay marriage is about, then: the embrace by previously-marginalized people of a traditional institution, an institution indispensable for the raising of healthy, whole children.”
I don’t doubt that some gay men and women are doing exactly as Goldberg describes. But I have seen no evidence to show that this is true of most, or even many, lesbians and homosexuals. Gay men, in fact, are known to be rather promiscuous (a fact which helps to explain the devastation, within the gay community, wrought by the AIDS virus).
In truth, there is a big push for “gay marriage” because so-called gay rights advocates see this as a winning means to gain social acceptance and approval for gay men and women.
I am glad that we live in a tolerant and accepting society. However, there is little reason to think that most lesbians and homosexuals yearn for traditional married life. And, even if they did, I’m not sure why they need special legal recognition of their unions in order to settle down into monogamous relationships.
The problem for us conservatives is that “gay marriage” advocates have shrewdly and brilliantly adopted the language of “rights” and “equality.” They are wrong to have done so. Marriage is not about “rights”; it is about children and civilization. And when it comes to raising children, an intact family with a mother and a father has no equal.
The political challenge — the now extremely formidable political challenge — is translating these truths into effective electoral propositions that can command the support of our fellow citizens. I am, I regret to say, not sanguine or optimistic about our chances.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/27/marriage-realities-political-a
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 6.27.11 @ 4:29PM
You simply can't legislate respect---and that's where gay activists completely and utterly fail. Unable to build, they seek to destroy.
dc| 6.27.11 @ 5:15PM
Had a queer colleague a few years back, who had a long-term "partner," whom he brought to various company social events, without incident. One evening we were sitting at a reception table at another colleague's wedding (a real one, man & woman), and we started on this line of discussion, thankfully briefly. He said in effect, I just wish people would accept that this is what we (he and partner he) want, and not make a big deal of it. I said, I understand what you want, but you must understand, I don't want the government forcing that on me. Being a reasonably sound, logical conservative despite his deviant life, he agreed. But now we can't agree, can we? It's either queer "marriage" is the moral equivalent of the Judeo-Christian, Book of Genesis and every other non-barbarian culture in recorded history, Christian or otherwise, to be sanctioned by the state and to which the state demands fealty and obedience as legal union, or it's something deviant, un-natural and wrong, that two people can pretend through, but never actually be what they want to be.
In the latter situation, there are some hurt feelings but liberty and Western civilization are preserved. In the former case, which is what we have now (or soon will), the majority of human history and the cultural foundations of the nation are subordinated to political and cultural faddism, and a septic lifestyle is rammed down our throats (sorry for the imagery) as something we must all accept whether we like it or not. And this is supposed to engender cultural tolerance and peace? It will have the same effect on "gay rights" as Roe v Wade had on "abortion rights." It mocks the Constitution, destroys liberty, and creates massive social friction. Nice work, leftist assmonkeys.
Tony G| 8.2.11 @ 10:55AM
It mocks the Constitution? How? It destroys liberty? How? You teabaggers have no problem invoking the Constitution and liberty whenever it suits you, no matter how unsubstantiated. Ironic that you would do so in this context. What part of the Constitution deals with excluding gays from being married? The "majority of human history" does not instruct us as to the structure of our society, otherwise we would live under a monarchy and be shackled by religion. This point seems to be lost on you. The history of this country is one of progress towards liberty for all individuals, which is not faddish. Our history from day one represents hewing towards this principle and letting it guide the history of our great people. Slavery abolished, women given the right to vote, civil rights, the end of Jim Crow, etc. Now the equal treatment of people you dismiss as 'queers'. The article above at least makes an attempt at an intelligent argument (and fails), but you simply wallow in bigotry, religious dogma, and platitudes about 'liberty" which is presumably the liberty to be free to treat others as inferiors. This right is still available to you, sir, as an individual but it will not and cannot be codified into law.
Derek Leaberry| 6.27.11 @ 4:57PM
If brought up by someone pre-1990, that person would have been considered bizarre and a little bit crazy for proposing such nonsense. In two decades, deviancy defined down( a topic at this site last week) has made it so that many alleged "conservatives" can't even bear to criticize the concept of sodomite "marriage." It is apparent that many "conservatives" are now part of the deviant culture.
Homosexuality is a deviant and dishonorable lifestyle. Jesus thought so. George Washington thought so. Robert E. Lee thought so. That's good enough for me. If conservatism can not or will not defend traditional marriage, then it is time to blow up the movement. To hell with the Ryan Plan, the wars in the Middle East, the military, tax cuts and Ayn Rand.
David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 7:08PM
Amen. No civilization can survive on material concerns alone, as such a focus results in a selfish and decadent society, ultimately destroying it.
Tony G| 8.2.11 @ 11:20AM
Robert E. Lee was fine with slavery, apparently. You don't find the moral decadence of slavery to be a dishonorable lifestyle? Also, where in the Bible does Jesus mention homosexuality? I thought He said don't judge people.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 5:32PM
I lived in New Zealand for a year (actually, 14 months), in 2006-2007. What stunned me at first was the number of people discussing their "partners," which, at the time, was slang for "gay lover" in the States. I later found out that this mostly referred to heterosexual couples. I even later (give each stage a few weeks) found out that the majority of men and women I knew at nursing level (college educated, but not generally at the socioeconomic level of the MDs/equivalents) were unmarried to their partners. I later found out that this was even more true farther down the ladder; that the majority of New Zealanders in long term relationships were unmarried. I later found out how child unfriendly NZ was. I later found out what a wrteched place NZ was to raise kids. I later came back to rural America, where my kids are homeschooled and happy.
We are barely breeding to replacement (actually, a shade under). Our marriages are in a horrid mess, with only the upper middle and upper classes benefitting from stable marriages. Our kids are more psychologically disturbed than ever before. We do not need further attacks on marriage.
When do we go athwart history and say "stop?"
Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 5:35PM
By the way, New Zealand was mentioned in "America Alone" as a place where the people were breeding to replacement. That is not true among the Pakeha; it is true among the Maori, who have worse health and more drug/alcohol abuse and prison and mental hospital occupancy.
And they are the healthiest breeders among the Western Countries outside of Israel.
Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 5:33PM
Sorry, "wretched place," not "wrteched place."
Occam's Tool| 6.27.11 @ 5:38PM
By the way, whatever happened to "Civil Unions," which would give right of survivorship, etc. to gay partners without the sanctity of recognizing "marriage?"
W| 6.27.11 @ 6:09PM
You do not need marriage to inherit property. You can do a will, or buy property, stocks, bank accounts, etc. in joint names with the rights of survivorship. You can do a power of attorney to appoint your partner, you can do a contracts to cover most areas. There is an inheritance tax break in most states that the surviving spouse does not have to pay inheritance tax, and there is a federal estate tax benefit for spouses. The answer to this is to eliminate the inheritance and estate tax for all of us.
David Minnich| 6.27.11 @ 7:12PM
Gays will often ask "how will my marrying my partner hurt your marriage"? This is called framing the question. The real concern is that "gay marriage" will damage the institution of marriage, by reducing the respect people have for this institution.
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.28.11 @ 8:04AM
This is really simple. If two consenting ADULTS have the right to get Married, then what is to stop a Father from marrying his Daughter? A Mother from marrying her Son. Brother marrying Sister? Why can it only be 2 PEOPLE?
Do you understand? All of these things will happen, because the GENIE is out of the Bottle.
We are fast approaching SODOM and GHAMMORA status. Thanks to DEMOCRATS.
Karl| 6.28.11 @ 11:14AM
The genie was out of the bottle when the DSM was revised. Untethered from the anchor of reproductive biology, there was no longer any good reason to deny marriage to homosexuals. As incest is still deemed abnormal, and polygamy nominally criminal, I would not worry about a quick slide into Sodom and Gomorrha.
I do wonder whether the blame for the current state of things (including a dreary week of New York Times in which nearly every third article is by, for or about gays) doesn't lie with heterosexual couples. Mr. Guardiano makes the point that marriage has become decoupled from parenting. It seems to me a deal was made long ago: "Let us live openly as man and wife, let us celebrate our lives as vested members of our community and let us do these things without public reproach or opprobrium. Sanctify our conduct together, as evidenced by our children, and give them legitimacy before our peers, etc. etc." in return for which, a certain solemnity and durability was expected of the relationship, and adultery and divorce were generally deemed to put the deal in breach.
Over the years, however, couples demanded more and more freedom from their side of the deal, decriminalization of adultery, no-fault divorce, serial remarriage, wide acceptance of cohabitation and single parenthood...all for seemingly good reasons, until marriage today is no longer very durable and is qualitativley bereft of its bilateral foundation. In essence it is nothing but a loose aggregate of privileges and obligations signifying the expressed hope of two people that their love will last "at least until next Christmas". On what basis can we deny that to gays?
It's a sad state of affairs, but I can't bring myself to blame gays for seeing their own relationships reflected in an institution that has been diluted to the legal equivalent of frolic and detour.