Not enough is being made of this story:
Thousands of couples joined Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and first lady Janet Huckabee in renewing their wedding vows at a Valentine’s Day ceremony supporting the state’s voluntary covenant-marriage law that makes divorce harder to obtain.
“There is a crisis in America,” the Republican governor told a crowd of 6,400 at an arena Monday night. “That crisis is divorce. It is easier to get out of a marriage than (to get out of a) contract to buy a used car.”
Before the Huckabees renewed their wedding vows, they signed legal papers converting their 30-year marriage to a covenant marriage. Organizers of the event did not ask other couples to convert their marriages.
Under the 2001 Arkansas law, couples getting a covenant marriage agree to seek counseling before they wed and before they seek a divorce. A covenant marriage also requires a two-year wait before a divorce becomes final, except in cases of adultery, abuse or imprisonment for a felony.
From the Instapundit I see that Ann Althouse and John Scalzi have some choice comments on the issue. Ann states:
I must say I find it utterly repugnant for a political figure to make a big public show of upgrading his marriage to a “covenant marriage.” I don’t particularly approve of the trend of private celebrations that involve some married couple renewing their wedding vows. (What are you saying about vows if you have to renew a vow?) But for a state governor to participate in a spectacle like this, thrusting his private life into a gigantic rally, is just appalling.
I agree, but before I discuss this absurd covenant marriage bit, let’s review another related issue:
Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele and former Oklahoma Congressman J.C. Watts have issued a statement calling for Howard Dean to apologize over remarks he made while addressing the Democratic Black Caucus last Friday.
First, the offending statement:
Kimmitt
Basically, I agree with you on these points.
Flagwaver
John,
I’m small-l libertarian by nature, and I don’t think the government should have ANYTHING to do with marriage, including issuing licenses for same. If two men want to get “married,” and they can find a priest who will perform the ceremony, that affects me how, exactly?
Now, having said that, there is a societal issue here that bears examination. There is sufficient empirical data collected on the subject at this point that it is inarguable that, in general, a two-parent, man/woman couple household is far and away the best environment for raising children.
Equally, empirical data shows that married men live longer, are somewhat healthier, are generally happier, have higher job satisfaction, etc. (Interestingly, from the information I’ve seen marriage has little impact on the health, happiness, etc. of women, and what impact has been documented tends to be negative. I guess we’re harder to live with than women are???)
Married couples tend to be much better off, financially. They tend to save more for retirement.
Children raised in “traditional” households do better in school, complete more schooling, get better jobs, earn more money, are less likely to use drugs, have teen pregnancies, get STD’s, commit suicide, or join cults.
So, even given my “libertarian” leanings, I am forced to ask the question: Since “traditional” marriage has so many powerful social benefits, that indirectly benefit society, does society have a legitimate interest in protecting and promoting an institution that confers so many benefits on society? And if not, why not?
Certainly, if the government can justify intruding into things such as how and when I discipline my children (and FIND ME a liberal that doesn’t fawn all over the concept of “Child Protective Services”!), whether or not I wear a seat belt when I drive, whether my aspirin bottle has a child-proof cap, and (coming soon to a fast food place near you) whether I have the RIGHT to eat a greasy hamburger, if I want to, it can justify putting its support behind a long-standing historico-religio-cultural institution which confers ENORMOUS benefits on society.
Would I prefer that the government butt the hell out of my life altogether? Unquestionably. But, since that ain’t about to happen in my lifetime (not if I were another Methuselah!), why not have the government involved in something that ACTUALLY HAS A POSITIVE BENEFIT????????
I dunno, makes sense to me – if the government’s going to butt in to anything, trying to maintain the status of such an institution seems a pretty benign government intervention, in comparison to so many other things the government does.
derek
Mike Huckabee wasn’t performing a politacal stunt, he was trying to convey a message. People today see divorce as nothing more than a quick get-out-jail-free card and have no hesitations to call it quits when things get difficult.
I think his message is well taken.
Jeff
I’m gonna ignore the marriage issue, because it sounds pretty stupid.
Regarding Dean’s comments, however, it’s perfectly legitimate to make a bit of a stink about them because for years Democrats have made a stink about things one-tenth as bad.
For starters, he just assuming that hotel workers in menial jobs would be minorites.
for another, Dean is a guy that had a lilly-white staff in Vermont (which i’ll give him some slack for because Vermont is a lilly-white state) and a lilly-white staff during his primary campaign.
His past record seems to indicate he’s exactly the kind of guy that talks the talk about race, but doesn’t apply it to his daily life, unless he needs his table cleared or an extra mint on his pillow.
BLG
Please read The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher. It basically supports exactly what Flagwaver said, excepting the part about marriage being negative for women. Marriage, for females, generally either has no change, or a somewhat small increase in emotional and physical health. This is because women, inside or outside of marriage, usually, as it is empirically shown, take better care of their emotional and physical health than men do.
This book frames the issue well, and shows empirically why traditional marriage is beneficial to husband, wife, and especially children.
John Cole
Approximately what part of my post or any posts in the past argues that traditional marriage is not to be preferred?
Flagwaver
And what was Gov. Huckabee doing, other than trying to use the organs of government, and his “bully pulpit” to “prefer” traditional marriage????
I don’t presume to speak for all Republicans, or all conservatives, or all small-l libertarians, but for myself, I believe that it is inarguable that traditional marriage is, as BLG stated, objectively BETTER for men, children (and even women, apparently) and MOST IMPORTANT, society. It is, simply, the best socio-cultural construct for creating, preserving and passing on values, for preparing children to be productive members of society, and reducing the burden on society of caring for children, the elderly and etc.
So, if conservatives/Republicans take the position that, for example, sanctifying and elevating gay “marriage” to the same status as “traditional” marriage is NOT supportive of that institution, and taking steps to make divorce more difficult IS supportive of that institution, your problem with that would be what, exactly?
Doug
RE having to prove a negative such as not being a homophobe, I feel it is not my job to prove anything to anyone about my personal orientation. If someone wants to call me a homophobe, I deny it and move on. PC affects me not.
Kimmitt
why traditional marriage is beneficial to husband, wife, and especially children.
In the aggregate, yes. But any given marriage might be terrible for husbands, wives, and especially children.
Which is to say, society has every reason to sponsor healthy marriages and every reason to allow the swift dissolution of unhealthy marriages. Further, there is no reason to think that gay marriages would not have a similarly salutory effect.
Chris
I don’t know whether covenant marriage is a stunt or not, but in OK a divorcing couple is required to take classes on divorced parenting before they are granted a divorce. Which is probably a good idea.
Jeff
Kimmitt hit the nail on the head (Did i just say that? I hope I don’t lose my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy membership over it.)
The idea that there is regular marriage and then this “covenant marriage” reminds me of the scene in “A Few Good Men” when Demi Moore is in court and objects, is overruled, and then says “but I strenuously object”.
Kevin pollak then reams her out and says “either you object or you dont, but you don’t ‘strenuously object'”.
Either you’re married or you’re not. Putting some cute little name on it and changing some things around doesn’t really change the concept.
Derek
Jeff,
He’s not trying to change the original concept. He’s trying to change what people think is the concept of marriage – i.e holywood marriages. He’s using the word ‘covenant’ to re-represent the term of marriage as a firm legal binding between a man and a wife.
Basically, he’s trying to remind people that it’s serious stuff.
bg
Bravo John.
M. Scott Eiland
I’m not sure what your problem with this is, John. Recent changes in divorce law have basically made no-fault divorce an unavoidable situation for couples that might like it to be otherwise. Covenant marriages give couples who want an alternative a way to get it, which they enter through their own choice, just as if they had decided voluntarily to sign a pre-nup that limited their legal rights to community property. This is an issue of contract law more than anything, and doesn’t force anyone who doesn’t want covenant marriage to enter into it. Yes, it’s a little tacky for Huckabee to stage his re-marriage in public, but as political tackiness goes, it’s well down the list.
What any of this has to do with gay marriage is beyond me.
Jeff
Derek, your point is well-taken, and while there are exceptions, i happen to believe if people don’t take the idea of marriage seriously, or realize what a serious committment marriage is the way it is now, they’re not going to all of a sudden start just because the word “covenant” is attached to it and they have to go to some counseling.
And, maybe i didn’t read it thoroughly enough, but do they make exceptions for situations when it’s best for one spouse to just take the kids and get the hell out, ie situations of abuse or gambling/alcohol/drug problems?
Somebody mentioned Hollywood marriages, but not everybody gets divorced because they wake up one day and decide they’d rather be banging their aerobics instructor or secretary.
TJ Jackson
If two people love each other I doubt whether the approval of society is what is required. Hoever if we are seeking the approval of society by redefining marriage why can’t we have multiple partners or a 7 year old spouse?
I ahave little patience for those who push a political agenda without accepting that they seek to alter society. This flies in the face of tradition and the accumulated wisdom and experience of mankind.
derek
Jeff,
He’s not talking about abusive or adulterous marriages. He clearly stated that any form of that behavior is a legitimate ‘out’ of the marriage. Instead, he’s talking about couples who call it quits when the don’t feel all tingly when they see each other anymore.
At least that’s what I got out of it.
Also, I don’t think he expects people to all of a sudden change their opinion on the sanctity of marriage. I instead think that he intends to imprint some sort of value on a younger generation who is being raised in a ‘me first’ society. People don’t want to work for results anymore. They feel that they have to move on if something becomes difficult. That’s the main reason why 50% of marriages are ending up in the trash can. There’s just no accountability.
Flagwaver
Again, I’m not a fan of government intervention in private matters (and there is little more private, or at least that SHOULD be more private, than a couple’s relationship) – even when, as in this case, I can make a strong empirical case that it is an overall “benefit” to society. All I’m saying is that, IF you are going to have government intervention in such private matters, and, God knows, we are inundated with such, this is about as benign a matter as it is possible to find. The upside BLG and I have set forth above.
And the downside is what, exactly?? A few (and I emphasize FEW) gay couples may have to rely on contracts or “civil union” statutes to get the same rights that my spouse gets by law? A few people who probably shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place may have more trouble getting divorced? Ya know, I can live with that.
Kimmitt, I suspect you have never been married. I’ve been married over 20 years, have four kids, and my wife and I have what I humbly and optimistically choose to be believe is a “good” marriage. We’re good friends, good partners, good parents, and we WORK at making our marriage work. Still and all, we have have some very rough times, as I imagine most people have. If it weren’t for the fact that I’m a stubborn bastard (which, of course, is part of why we DID have rough times), and was raised to believe that marriage is forever, we might not be married now. The changes to the divorce laws, and society’s acceptance of divorce, have made it TOO easy to get divorced. It was ALWAYS possible to get divorced in cases of abuse, alcoholism, etc. “Irreconcilable differences”??? What the hell is THAT??? People should think more than twice about getting married. People should think LONG AND HARD about getting divorced, ESPECIALLY when there are children involved.
“Well, isn’t it worse to bring kids up in a house where the father is abusing the mother, or they are fighting all the time?” What the hell kind of @$$hole abuses his wife AT ALL, let alone in front of his kids? What kind of @$$hole parents fight in front of their kids?
Hey, my parents, who were not, by any stretch of the imagination, model parents or model spouses, managed to do it for almost 40 years (until my mother died). I have zero sympathy for people who think marriage is, or should be, as disposable as a soft drink can.
John Cole
Kimmitt is married and lives in Hawaii with his wife where he attends grad school.
smijer
I’m very impressed. What the republicans need if they want to get past the hang-over of an anti-minority reputation, is more people like you, John, speaking out in favor of equal protections for all under the law, and taking the troglodytes in your party to task for their intolerance. And, if folks like you do take that stand – on civil rights, and against those southerners in the party that still hold office and rub elbows with racist organizations like the CCC, your party will earn a ticket out of that bad rep. Great post.
Flagwaver
smiljer,
I’ve never heard a cogent explanation of why allowing gays to “marry” (as opposed to having domestic partnership or civil union protection) is a valid “equal protection” issue. Do we not prevent brothers, sisters and cousins from marrying? We outlaw polygamy, marriage to minors, and place various other restrictions on this institution. How is it a denial of equal protection to anyone to say that a marriage is only recognized between a man and a woman? Rock Hudson was famously gay, and he was married. What’s-his-face, the resigning governor, is apparently gay, and he was married. Gays can marry, just like straights can.
Just out of curiousity, are you one of those who contends that gay couples should be given equal consideration for adoptions as straight couples? And, if not, how are your positions consistent?
Gays continue to try to frame their agenda as a “civil rights” and “equal protection” issue. Sorry, I just don’t see it. I, personally, don’t give a rip if gays can marry, or not. However, I do not think the Republican/conservative position on gay marriage is either unreasonable, or homophobic. Are there unreasonable, homophobic Republicans/conservatives who rally to this issue? Of course – and when you purge your party of race panderers like Al Sharpton, and obvious racists/former KKK members (“white niggers,” anyone?), I’ll listen to you bash the remaining Republican homophobes. Until then, pot, meet kettle.
smijer
Flagwaver,
If you can’t understand how equal protection and civil rights come into it, either because you lack the interest to see it from that angle, or you lack the wit to understand… that’s fine. I’m not going to undertake the task of clearing that up for you.
Perhaps you should look at it from the persepctive of the golden rule. If the government annulled your own marriage and treated your partnership with your wife as something less worthwhile than mine, for instance, wouldn’t you feel put upon? Now apply Golden Rule, and “presto”, you’re a gay marriage proponent.
As far as adoption is concerned, there is one reason and one reason only to allow or deny an adoption: the welfare of the child. If a person or couple can show that they can provide a good home for the child, then nothing else matters.
smijer
And, I won’t take the rest of your bait. In the sixties, our party left the Dixiecrats behind. Their options were to switch parties or to at least make an impenatrable show of reform. Most did the former. A few did the latter. Some remain very much ostracized from the mainstream of the party.
Kimmitt
The information John posted is available on the bio section of my blog, located conveniently at the top right on the main page.
JKC
“Flagwaver”s little snide aside about Child Protective Services is typical of the Neanderthal garbage that Cole is trying to shine a light on here.
Perhaps “Flagwaver” might be singing a different tune if, like me, he’d treated an eight year old girl whose wrist had been broken by her stepfather in the name of “discipline.” I gladly called CPS about that case, although I’m sure that makes me a godless heathen in Flagwaver’s eyes.
Flagwaver
smiljer,
You resort to name calling, rather than dealing with the substance of my arguments. I carefully re-read my post to you. I did not insult you, or call you names. I questioned your basis for asserting that gay marriage is an “equal protection” issue, and you respond with thinly-veiled, and not very well rendered, insults.
Let’s try this again. BY LAW, I am unable to use the women’s restroom – am I denied “equal protection”? Brown v. Board of Education says separate is inherently unequal, so the fact that I have my own restroom doesn’t matter – if I want to use the women’s room, and can’t, I’m denied equal protection, right?
Equally, I can’t teach P.E. to High School girls – equal protection problem, right???
Your “Golden Rule” analogy is inapposite – if my marriage is annulled, so is John’s, Kimmitt’s (sorry, Kimmitt, I jumped to an unjustified conclusion – here’s hoping you have many happy years to consider the wonders of marriage!), and all other guys married to women. That’s a problem for me how, exactly????
They only annul MY marriage? There are so many legal issues with that one, it’s just silly as an analogy.
There are many things I am permitted to do that, for example, women are not. There are many things women can do that I cannot. Even if they are granted the right to marry, there is one thing that my wife and I can do that no gay couple can (at least at the current state of technology) – have children.
Gays are permitted to marry to exactly the same extent that I am. In what way are they denied equal protection? Does a gay man not have the right to marry a woman?
As for your comments about race relations and your party, try peddling that line somewhere else. Your party is the HOME of racism, both historically and in current practice. If you can’t see the racism in your party, clean your glasses.
As far as your comments about adoption, they beg the question. “The only issue is the welfare of the child.” Yeah. OK, you’re the social worker making the decision. Two couples with identical credentials, background, etc. – a husband and wife and a gay couple. Who gets the kid? Your “answer” was a cop out.
Flagwaver
JKC,
Put your money where your (big) mouth is, JKC. My family and I support, financially and with time and effort, a local Catholic women’s and children’s shelter. I also volunteer to mentor inner city kids who don’t have that influence at home. I walk the walk on child abuse – not just talk the talk, like most liberals.
As for CPS, yes, your story about the 8 year old is tragic. And CPS prevented that how, exactly?? And CPS has had how many children beaten to death in LA County alone, after numerous warnings? CPS spends it’s time persecuting parents whose view of discipline doesn’t jive with CPS – and lets inner city kids die.
Don’t lecture ME about CPS – do your homework.
And, no, you’re not a godless heathen – you’re just a smartass jerk.
JKC
Yawn, “Flagwaver.” Unless you’ve been beating your kids (which I doubt, FWIW), I’ve had a hell of a lot more contact with CPS than you have. God knows they aren’t perfect agencies; they’re underfunded, their caseworkers too often overworked and/or incompetent. And without monitoring every parent everywhere, there’s no way they can prevent every case of abuse from happening.
And I may well be a smartass jerk, but if you really think that all CPS exists for is to keep evangelical Christians from spanking their kids, than you are a fool.
Flagwaver
No, JKC, CPS doesn’t exist to keep evangelical Christians (and I’m a Catholic, by the way, so your insult missed the mark by a mile) from disciplining their children – or Catholics, either, for that matter. CPS exists for the same reason most government agencies exist – someone identified a “problem” (in this case, abused or neglected children), and put in place an inefficient, “one size fits all” government solution to it. After years of pissing away my tax money, CPS has a DISMAL record, on both ends of the spectrum. It neither prevents child abuse, nor does any substantive good for the abused children. Child abuse is now MORE prevalent (at least the CPS statistics say so) than when CPS was established. So, the government has solved this problem, right???
Why is it that you liberals (oh, excuse me, “progressives”!) never feel that you have to be accountable for the results (or lack thereof) of your “good intentions? School busing? Resulted in inner city schools becoming MORE segregated. Welfare? Resulted in a near-permanent underclass, an epidemic (pandemic?) of teen and unwed pregnancies, and nearly destroyed the black nuclear family. Social Security? A giant Ponzi scheme, which would have gotten a corporate executive jailed. It is neither a useful welfare program, nor a retirement fund – it is simply a half-assed, demographically unsustainable transfer of wealth from working individuals to the elderly/retired – which has also had the result of (or at least a strong statistical correlation with) dramatically falling private savings rates.
What does it take to get you folks to say, “Hey, we thought it was a good idea, but it is obviously a major screw up. Let’s junk it, and try to do something that works.”
But, you were right about one thing – you ARE a smartass jerk.
John Cole
Everyone play nice.
I am the only asshole allowed around here.
smijer
FW, I’m sorry that I came across as insulting. I certainly don’t want to insult you personally, but your arguments appear to be fatuous. Have you seriously sat back and thought about the issue you so flippantly dismiss with “a gay man can marry a woman same as I can”? I said I wouldn’t accept the task of clearing this up for you, because I felt, from your comments, that you had not seriously considered the issue yourself, or else you did not care to. I guess I should give you the benefit of the doubt, though — so here goes:
Think for a moment, if you will, a world where fortunes are reversed. Heterosexuals are, in this hypothetical, a minority. Homosexuals have a long tradition, both religious and legal of marrying, with all that implies. For most of history, they have relegated straights to second-class status, either leaving them out of their cultural and legal institutions, or actively persecuting them. Due to this history, you find yourself in a world where it is legal for two of the same sex to marry, and not legal for two of different sex to marry. Now, some of your straight friends are challenging that status quo, and calling it an issue of civil rights.
A gay person may dismiss your claim – hey… you can marry another man, same as he can right? So what’s the big fuss. But that’s just facile. The fact is, that out of the universe of possible partners with whom you could happily carry on a monogamous life-long sexual relationship, there are no men that fit the bill for you. Only women. You do not have the right to marry from among your potential mates. If you choose to engage in the same relationship with one of your potential mates as the gay person, then you will do so without any of the legal protections or social status he enjoys. If there is any meaning behind the equal protection law, it must apply here. What non-arbitrary reason can be found for denying you the right to marry among those with whom you have a hope to be happy, the same as with the gay person? If you can find no non-arbitrary reason, then equal protection demands that the law not deny to you what it grants to the homosexual.
You said… “Your ‘Golden Rule’ analogy is inapposite – if my marriage is annulled, so is John’s, Kimmitt’s (sorry, Kimmitt, I jumped to an unjustified conclusion – here’s hoping you have many happy years to consider the wonders of marriage!), and all other guys married to women. That’s a problem for me how, exactly????”
You did not employ the golden rule. Under the golden rule, you would not want this to happen to you, and therefore you would not want it to happen to someone else. You wouldn’t want it to happen to John or Kimmit, or Elton John and his husband. Just to clear this up, and remove the confusion that you seem to have over who, exactly, is affected by your marriage’s annulment, let’s say, for instance that the arbitrary reason for your marriage’s annulment had to do with your eye color rather than your heterosexuality… Then John’s and Kimmit’s marriages are not affected, but yours is… You are being relegated to second class status. If you don’t want this to happen to you over a matter of eye color, then you should not want it to happen to your neighbor over a matter of gender or sexual identity. Ergo, the golden rule requires you to advocate for gay marriage, or at least not agitate against it or join forces with those who do.
ray
“Think for a moment, if you will, a world where fortunes are reversed. Heterosexuals are, in this hypothetical, a minority. Homosexuals have a long tradition, both religious and legal of marrying, with all that implies.”
Consider, if you will, a world where men bear babies and women rape men. IOW, a world that is fundamentally different from our world.
Just like what you posit.
Marriage is an institution found if EVERY human society in all of recorded history. The reason this is so is due to the basic fact that marriage is the best way to bear and raise baby human beings so that they survive and become successful productive members of society.
Homosexual marriage cannot fulfill this function. Period. In a human society, the concept of homosexual marriage is as absurd as the concept of men becoming pregnant and bearing a baby.
In some alternate reality this may be different, but in that case the beings under discussion would not be *human* beings, but something else.
Aaron
Homosexuals raising children they did not make themselves….is that any different from a regular adoption or Grandparents taking care of orphaned children?
The solution to the marriage issue is simple. The government gives everyone civil unions. Only the church of your choice can marry you.
TM Lutas
It’s hard to know where to start and I’m tempted to give this awful post a pass as just an aberration but I won’t.
First of all, the sleaze campaign against Republicans in minority communities is in mid shark-jump. Old habits die hard but when you have a former “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK leading the Democrat charge against the first black woman nominated to the post of Secretary of State, something is seriously wrong and blacks are starting to notice.
Republicans pretty much announced (during each of the Colin Powell boomlets) that they’d nominate the first qualified black Republican for president who wanted to run and to hell with ideological differences. I’m not quite sure what more you can do to lay out the welcome mat other than that and doing what President Bush is already doing, figuring out how to package Republican principles to ideologically compatible members of minority communities and nominating every qualified minority he can to appropriate positions so they can punch their tickets and move up the ladder of Republican politics at least as fast as everybody else.
The Republican Party may have had an albatross of intolerance around its neck but in large measure that albatross has been a matter of libel, slander, and calumny. Unfortunately, this post furthers that ugly trend.
Moving on to marriage. Marriage is a licensed activity. You license something either because if the activity is not limited, bad things will happen (this is the main justification for licensing hunting and fishing) or because the activity does good things for society and you want to encourage it with expensive goodies but don’t want to provide said goodies to those who don’t provide those societal benefits (marriage is mostly this type of licensed transaction).
You have to establish what that list of goodies is and that a new class of people provide those goodies in the same measure as the present beneficiaries in order to justify an equal protection claim. Tolerance has nothing to do with the discussion.
In my own marriage, my wife and I filed civil papers months before our religious marriage. We did not consider ourselves to be married until that religious ceremony. We filed civil papers to obtain government benefits, legal recognition of our relationship, mostly to get an early start on INS paperwork. As far as the government was concerned, we were married and we gave good value in return for the civil benefits we got.
Gay marriage supporters consistently have a very confused idea over what civil marriage is about. I’ll tolerate just about anybody’s religious marriage as long as they don’t cause civil disorder (as polygamous marriages tend to do) but if I’m going to give up the power to coerce testimony in a criminal case, lower the take in taxes in one working spouse families, and all the rest of the privileges of marriage, tolerance is just not a factor.
This was a really disappointing post.
Flagwaver
First, John, sorry, I can’t help myself – I’m a professional asshole. Having practiced my profession (successfully and very well) for upwards of 28 years, I am now so steeped in assholiness that I secrete it from my pores (sorta like garlic after a big Italian meal, or some kick-ass kimchee). I will try to restrain myself.
smiljer,
If you were using concepts with precision, please afford me the courtesy of assuming that I am doing the same. My arguments were neither fatuous nor irrelevant – they were, instead, strictly legal. How much do you know about the law re: equal protection? The equal protection clause does NOT guarantee that you will be treated the same way as everyone else. Or even the same way as everyone else who is similarly situated. What it MEANS, in a legal and constitutional sense, is that you will not be UNREASONABLY discriminated against, on the basis of the so-called “protected classifications.” Believe me, the ability of a gay man to marry a woman means that, for Constitutional purposes, he is being afforded “equal protection.”
But your argument is either (i) the law should “adapt” to recognize his sexual orientation as a “protected classification” (this is happening, although I disagree that it is appropriate), or (ii) it isn’t “fair” that the law doesn’t recognize that his “choice” to marry a woman isn’t a viable “choice.”
Sorry. Life isn’t fair. If I am a devout (and traditional) Mormon, the law doesn’t recognize my ability/right to marry five women, even though religion is a more established “protected classification” than is sexual orientation.
Suppose I have a real “thing” for sheep. Is it “fair” for the law to discriminate against my choice??
ray stated it fairly well – the historical, societal, cultural basis and purpose of marriage was (i) to provide for children, and (ii) to provide a mechanism for the creation, and intergenerational transer, of wealth, values, knowledge and culture. “Traditional” marriage fulfills this cultural imperative; gay marriage does not.
Again, I am not a fan of government intervention in this area – I’m PERFECTLY happy to allow marriage to become solely a matter of religion and contract . . . IF you will grant me that I don’t have to “respect” your religion/contract. As an example, landlords being forced to rent to unmarried couples or gays. I’ll let you have complete freedom to exercise your preferences, if you’ll grant me the freedom to not tolerate those preferences where they impact MY life.
If it matters to this discussion, the person named in my estate plan to care for my children in the event my wife and I both die happens to be gay. As is the tutor we hired. As are several of my partners. I have NO animus toward gays . . . but I also do not believe “they” have the right to have their preferences and political agenda enshrined in Constitutional law. And, for the time being, precedent clearly supports my position.
smijer
“How much do you know about the law re: equal protection?”
I know what the law says.
‘The equal protection clause does NOT guarantee that you will be treated the same way as everyone else. Or even the same way as everyone else who is similarly situated. What it MEANS, in a legal and constitutional sense, is that you will not be UNREASONABLY discriminated against, on the basis of the so-called “protected classifications.” ‘
Hmmmm… That’s an interesting assessment of what it means. It really isn’t that far from my own assessment – i.e., the law must apply equally to each individual, without regard to arbitrary distinctions. What it actually *says* is much simpler:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
…
‘Believe me, the ability of a gay man to marry a woman means that, for Constitutional purposes, he is being afforded “equal protection.”‘
I would be glad to believe you if you could produce a good reason to read the Constitution that way. But, really, it sounds like you are just parsing language – not trying to flesh out how the legal concept of equal protection applies to a situation of the sort under discussion.Parsing words isn’t the same as “using concepts with precision”.
…
‘Sorry. Life isn’t fair. If I am a devout (and traditional) Mormon, the law doesn’t recognize my ability/right to marry five women, even though religion is a more established “protected classification” than is sexual orientation.’
Life need not be fair. Only the law. Figuratively speaking, that’s why the Lady Justice holds the balance and covers her eyes.
A polygamist could make the argument that polygamy is fundamentally the same as traditional marriage and that such distinctions are arbitrary. That would be a rather complicated argument. I’m not sure, really, if the polygamist would be right or wrong. He would deserve to be heard. But his argument is irrelevant to the much simpler and clearer argument for homosexuals. Namely, that gender and/or sexuality are entirely arbitrary, and therefore inadequate reasons for denying equal protection.
‘Suppose I have a real “thing” for sheep. Is it “fair” for the law to discriminate against my choice??’
Yes. And, I had hoped that you wouldn’t even torture us with this bottom-feeding argument. But until sheep can meaningfully give consent, you cannot enter into a legal relationship with them of any nature, nor can you legally have sexual relationships with them. Furthermore, it isn’t a natural condition of any person or group of persons to find themselves limited to sheep for potential candidates for a domestic partnership of the nature that married couples enjoy. Kindly don’t bring animals back into this discussion – show some respect.
‘ray stated it fairly well – the historical, societal, cultural basis and purpose of marriage was (i) to provide for children, and (ii) to provide a mechanism for the creation, and intergenerational transer, of wealth, values, knowledge and culture. “Traditional” marriage fulfills this cultural imperative; gay marriage does not.’
Bull-shit, bull-shit, bull-shit. i) My marriage certificate is quite legal and carries the full weight of any other marriage, despite the fact that I married after having a vas ligation. If I divorced and wanted to marry a post-menopausal woman, there would be no barriers to me doing so. This is plenty of evidence that the capacity for natural reproduction is not the test of marriage. ii) Gay couples are equally capable of providing “a mechanism for the creation, and intergenerational transer, of wealth, values, knowledge and culture,” in a domestic partnership of the same nature that married couples enjoy.
‘Again, I am not a fan of government intervention in this area – I’m PERFECTLY happy to allow marriage to become solely a matter of religion and contract . . . IF you will grant me that I don’t have to “respect” your religion/contract. As an example, landlords being forced to rent to unmarried couples or gays. I’ll let you have complete freedom to exercise your preferences, if you’ll grant me the freedom to not tolerate those preferences where they impact MY life.’
If our society decides at some point in the future that we will no longer “officially” (e.g. legally) sponsor marriage, then the issue will become effectively dead. You will have no legal obligation to “respect” a gay marriage – though your moral obligation will remain. I can respect the viewpoint that society should exist with fewer rather than more official (e.g. legal) institutions, and that marriage should become sponsored without official sanction. I disagree with that viewpoint, and right now, I think that our society also disagrees with that viewpoint. You’re welcome to try to advance your viewpoint by any legal means, though.
I’m glad to hear you say that you harbor no animus toward gays, and that you have good relationships with those you know. That is good. But the fact remains that there is institutionalized legal discrimination against them – in the legal precedent that you describe. That situation should be reversed in order to comply with the 14th amendment’s equal protection doctrine, and to comply with our society’s moral responsibility to treat people with equality.
P.S. I didn’t answer your follow-up on adoption, but my position is that the case-worker has already taken into account any relevant data about how the sexuality of parents affects children in coming to whatever conclusion they came to. If after doing so, they still have two equally prepared couples, one gay, one straight, there is no need for the case worker to make a decision based on his personal prejudices about which will be a better couple. He has already considered the actual data. He might just as well flip a coin… After all some case workers may have a personal prejudice in favor of the gay couple, right? Why allow him to discriminate against the straight couple? Certainly, there is no need to create legal obstructions to gay adoption. The welfare of the child is paramount – and the law already recognizes that.
Flagwaver
smiljer,
Thanks for the reasoned response. I still disagree with you, at virtually every level of the discussion, but I appreciate that you were talking to me, rather than calling me names.
At this point, we must simply agree to disagree (hopefully respectfully). I assure you that current Constitutional jurisprudence and precedent DO NOT interpret the 14th Amendment to require gay marriage. Sexual orientation is not a “full” protected classification – it is gaining recognition in some areas (primarily statutory anti-discrimination laws at both the state and federal level), but there is no Supreme Court case holding that sexual orientation is a classification protected against discrimination. So, in debate terms, you are making a “should/would” argument. I understand your moral and ethical issue (although I still disagree with it), but that is NOT the law in the United States in 2005.
Your dismissal of my polygamy argument misses the point. Religion IS a recognized “protected classification” (as sexual orientation is NOT). There are a number of religions, including branches of Mormon (it was official policy of the church in Salt Lake City until much more recently than most people know), many branches of Islam, and a number of other lesser-known religions. If you determine that marriage MUST be redefined to include the right of a gay man to marry another man, what POSSIBLE argument do you have to legislate against religious-based polygamy? There isn’t one.
As for your statement that your marriage “proves” the opposite of my assertion about the historo-socio-cultural bases of marriage, I call bullshit. You are certainly an adept enough debater to know that the specific anecdotal is not disproof of the general. IN GENERAL, the roots, basis and purpose of marriage, for over 5,000 years, in virtually every culture on the face of the planet, is EXACTLY what I described. To take a specific contrary example and say it disproves the general is simply an attempt to mislead, or a gigantic logical lacunae. The basis and purpose of marriage in human society is a historical fact which is well documented. And gay marriage DOES NOT fit these historical roles. If you want to argue that marriage is now playing a different cultural role than it has for the past 5,000 years, argue away, but don’t try to deny the obvious facts.
You’re STILL dodging on the adoption issue. Look, there is considerable (not conclusive, not unquestionable, but considerable) sociological information indicating that children raised in a traditional, two-parent, man/woman household IN GENERAL have fewer psychological, social and adaptation problems, are more successful in school and in later life, have better self-image and more strongly integrated personalities, and themselves later enjoy more successful and fulfilling relationships. Statistically, they are less likely to drop out of school or perform poorly in school or be a disciplinary problem in school, they are more likely to go to college, less likely to take drugs or be involved in criminal activity or teen pregnancy, they tend to get better jobs and earn more money. Can you really question that IN GENERAL children are better off raised in traditional, two-parent, man/woman homes??? If so, on what basis? And if you concede my point, which “legal right” trumps which – the “welfare of the children” or the “equal protection” right of gays to adopt on the same basis as non-gays??
smijer
Frankly, the issue under discussion is whether current jurisprudence does justice to the requirement of equal protection demanded by the 14th amendment. In Vermont and Massachussetts, it has begun to. In other areas, jurisprudence hasn’t caught up. That doesn’t change the meaning of the Constitution or its requirements one whit.
What the law is and what is actually Constitutional are not necessarily the same.”Protected classifications” are one tool that the law uses to ensure constitutional protections. They are not mentioned in the constitution, and if they currently aren’t up to providing for equal protection, the the law must be amended in some way to provide equal protection. In my view, the 14th amendment requires that laws treat all individuals the same, without regard to arbitrary differences in disposition. That is equal protection – that is what is required. Jurisprudence hasn’t recognized this yet? Then its time to get shaking. Not that legislatures should wait for “activist judges” to set precedent or make demands before they provide equal protection – they should move now.
The possible arguments include two classes. The first class will assert that civil marriage is not a religious institution, and therefore it need not be defined in religious terms. The second class of arguments will propse that there is a fundamental (non-arbitrary) difference between a polygamous relationship and the type of relationship that the law currently recognizes. This is a difficult argument to make – I’m not sure that I could successfully argue against some form of recognition of polygamy on this basis. Actually, I don’t even care to. It is more important to me to advocate for rights for a class that I know is due them, than to argue against rights for a class that I believe may not be due them. The third class of argument would be pragmatic: marriage laws that protect a married couple come at a cost to both business and society. That cost would be increased by extending them to a trio or quartet. Finally, I must reiterate… equal protection requires gay marriage or no civil marriage. If it turns out that it also requires polygamous marriage, then that is a reason to recognize polygamous marriage – not a reason to pretend that it doesn’t require gay marriage.
Well, I could argue about “historical” roles for marriage being different from what you propose, since there have been a diversity of “historical” roles for marriage. On the other hand, most of history took place at time we call the “past”, and we aren’t morally bound to tie all of our ethical thinking to historical mores or norms. So I won’t argue that. On the other hand, I will argue that my marriage (and the post-menopausal marriage I suggested) are cases in point of a more general statement: our society would not tolerate legal obstacles to marriage for people who cannot naturally reproduce. You and I both know that this is true. So, the argument that marriage is “for” reproduction fails, because under that view it would be unobjectionable to erect legal barriers to non-reproductive marriage.
I was very clear. Welfare of the child trumps all other concerns. Now, I do also dispute the generalities that you are making: that children raised in a heterosexual home are better off, in general, than those raised in a homosexual home. They are better off, in general, than those raised in single parent homes (in general). I have not seen evidence that they are better off than those raised by homosexual parents. I cite the summary of research about this issue which can be found at this address: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html in support of my view, and they, in turn, cite numerous psychological studies. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Now, in the future, studies may turn up evidence that supports your “general” contention, or more specific concerns about disadvantages for children raised by gay parents. If so, social workers should continue to follow the law and see to it that children are given the home that will best ensure their welfare, and they should employ that data when making their decisions. As long as the welfare of the child per se is the deciding issue in adoption, and not the sexuality of the parents per se, then there is no constitutionally unacceptable discrimination. However, when groups move to ban gay adoption, or otherwise erect legal barriers to gay adoption that are not specifically targeted at ensuring the welfare of the children, then they are violating the equal protection clause, and the courts should strike down those laws.
Flagwaver
Wow, nice post, stiljer. You’ve framed your position very well, and I’d like to accord your position the respect it deserves by responding at length. Unfortunately, I haven’t got the time right now – leaving for the weekend.
Just one quick observation – your arguments are still “should/would.” Just to clarify, you read certain things into the language of the 14th Amendment, and assert that those things are the “Constitutional” requirements to achieve “equal protection.” Unfortunately, that’s not how Con law works. In the first instance, in a case of first impression, one looks to both the language of the Constitution, and the “intent of the Framers,” which is derived from all sorts of historical documents. We are WAY past this point on the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has spoken, extensively, on what the 14th Amendment means. By definition, in our system, the 14th Amendment now means what those cases SAY it means – and that is most definitely NOT what you read into it. Again, although this is a huge oversimplification, the Supreme Court has said that you cannot UNREASONABLY deny someone equal protection of the laws based on “protected classifications.” This was done in recognition of the fact that you CANNOT reasonably guarantee indentical outcomes in legal issues to two different people, even people similarly situated. Law is an art, not a science. All that the Supreme Court says the 14th requires is no substantive unfairness based on “protected classifications.” Quick example – I’m a white, Christian male (NONE of which categories are protected classifications!!). If I am more qualifed than a handicapped, African-American woman who applies for a government job, and she is given the job due to affirmative action, have I not been denied equal protection? Short answer is “yes,” in an ethical sense, and “no,” in a Constitutional sense. Even though I was clearly discriminated against, it was not what the Court regards as “unreasonable” discrimination, based on a protected classification. So, I lose (and, except for Bakke and a few other anomalies, so have all the other plaintiffs who have made this argument).
The 14th DOES NOT require that all people be treated substantially equally under the law. One can argue that it SHOULD, but that is not what the 14th “means” for Constitutional purposes.
And, again, although it makes people crazy when you say it, there IS a reality here that your argument skips right over. Marriage is defined as a legal/social relationship between a man and a woman. No man is denied the right to marry a woman, whether he is gay or not. It might even be to my advantage, some day, to “marry” another man, regardless of sexual orientation (if my wife dies, and I’m living with another man to share living expenses, and we decide it would be great to get the legal and tax benefits of marital status). I’m denied this right, too, without regard to my sexual orientation. The law doesn’t say, “You’re gay, therefore you can’t marry.” What the law actually says is, “Only men and women can marry,” without regard to sexual orientation. Again, I don’t see a denial of equal protection there.
Also, as another poster stated, the law recognizes ALL SORTS of limitations on licensed activities, from driving, to owning guns, to marriage, to practicing certain professions, to building a house. Some of these limitations place restrictions on people which arguably implicate established “protected classifications.” Example? In the County of Los Angeles, many rural areas are still on septic systems, rather than sewers (believe it or not!). The County has passed new building permit requirements for septic that requires installation of VERY expensive (try about $50K) septic systems for any new construction, and for any significant remodels. Now, they cite all sorts of health and safety issues as the basis for this, but the reality is that there simply AREN’T that many septic systems in LA County. Even if the new systems are “better,” the overall impact of the old systems is scientifically negligible. However, the EFFECT of these new regulations is, practically speaking, to make housing in these rural areas inaccessible to poor people – they simply can’t afford the cost of the required septic systems. Economic condition is a “protected classification.” But there is NO QUESTION that these new rules would not be struck down based on an equal protection argument, even though the clearly discriminate (and arguably without substantial benefit) on the basis of financial ability.
Equally, marriage is a licensed and regulated activity. The law allows and recognizes that licensing an activity implies an ability and right on the part of the government to regulate that activity, often in very intrusive ways.
The argument is NOT as simple as “If I’m gay, I can’t marry my gay partner, therefore I am being discriminated against.” Even if I agree with that statement, the answer may be “So what?” The law does NOT protect all people against all discrimination – nor should it.
Once we got over calling names, I enjoyed the discussion. Talk to you later.
Grant
smijer wrote:
“[O]ur society would not tolerate legal obstacles to marriage for people who cannot naturally reproduce. […] So, the argument that marriage is “for” reproduction fails, because under that view it would be unobjectionable to erect legal barriers to non-reproductive marriage.”
Marriage, conceptually, is a one man one woman bond for the purpose of procreation.
We translate this concept into law by saying (with a few exceptions) that any man can marry any woman. It is an imperfect approximation that has arisen over the years, but the law always contains some degree of arbitrariness, even as it tries to meet a specific goal–for example, we think that rational citizens should be allowed to vote, so we set a voting age. Marriage should be about procreation, so we say that one man and one woman should be allowed to get married, which is a pretty common-sense standard for this.
But, yeah, its true that nonprocreating unions will be formed under this, just as rational people under 18 will be denied the vote and irrational people over 18 will be given it.
To rephrase your quote above as a question, “why would we find it objectionable for legal barriers to be erected to non-reproductive marriage, if marriage is supposed to be about procreation?”
we would find it objectionable because all the years of associating marriage with both “one man one woman” and “procreation” have made each element a part of the whole, regardless of the correctness of that view. Its the case in law that we could prevent all violations if we made the government powerful enough in enforcing them (like put in cameras at stop lights, or have mandatory house inspections for illicit drugs)… but I prefer small, unintrusive government, so that is why I would find it objectionable. One man one woman is simply the best rule of thumb for procreation that we can have, without an intrusive government.
I don’t know if any of the above is correct or convincing, but I thought I would weigh in on this interesting debate. I should note that I sit the fence on this issue–a luxury that is allowed to me, i realize, because of my sexual orientation.
Squatch
I have to say I’ve never viewed the issue in this particular way. You’ve given me much to think about.
Aaron
I just read the Economist article on the covenant weddings. A few things stuck out:
Arkansas is no. 2 in the USA for divorce rate…so is it really grandstanding for Huckabee to make and example and promote this idea? If they were second to worst in literacy and he signed up for a class…
One of part of law is also to have counseling BEFORE you get married. This seems reasonable.
Kimmitt
Divorce rates correlate pretty strongly to average age of first marriage. Arkansas has among the youngest average age, so that’s kind of that.
TM Lutas
Marriage is about procreation *and* it’s also about propagation of society. Infertile heterosexual marriage doesn’t help much with the first but it can sure help out with the second. By providing models for successful male/female relationships infertile heterosexual marriages pull their weight and justify their inclusion as part of civil marriage (with all the costs that imposes).
The big mystery has always been men not understanding women and vice versa. We understand ourselves pretty well which is one reason why male/male and female/female bonding doesn’t fit into the same category. It doesn’t provide the same societal benefits in terms of role modeling.
In the game of societal propagation, the fertile are the stars, the childless marrieds are supporting cast. Homosexual pairings are competitive models and are thus off the marriage playbill. That’s the way it’s always been and that’s the way it should continue to be.
TM Lutas
Marriage is about procreation *and* it’s also about propagation of society. Infertile heterosexual marriage doesn’t help much with the first but it can sure help out with the second. By providing models for successful male/female relationships infertile heterosexual marriages pull their weight and justify their inclusion as part of civil marriage (with all the costs that imposes).
The big mystery has always been men not understanding women and vice versa. We understand ourselves pretty well which is one reason why male/male and female/female bonding doesn’t fit into the same category. It doesn’t provide the same societal benefits in terms of role modeling.
In the game of societal propagation, the fertile are the stars, the childless marrieds are supporting cast. Homosexual pairings are competitive models and are thus off the marriage playbill. That’s the way it’s always been and that’s the way it should continue to be.
AL Maviva
Way to go, John. Way to ditch a deeply held, well thought out belief, because some opportunistic asshole happens to have espoused the same thing.
Might as well ditch elections (Soviets had ’em); the worship of God generally (Fred Phelps & Osama bin Laden both say they worship); and for that matter bathing (Hitler was a clean freak).
Take a deep breath, pal. And then figure out if your original position had some merit that you clung to, independent of the sayso of some hayseed hick politician.
Grant
Hitler bathed? I’m like a Nazi every third weekend!
I don’t want to put words into John’s mouth, but I think he might have supported gay marriage before this. But I could be wrong.
Grayson
Largely ambivalent about the marriage issue. But consider looking at the argument from a slightly different angle. Let’s say that we went with the idea that government had no say in marriage. None. All it did was register that some form of contract was entered into between two parties. It didn’t approve, issue licenses or ask what that contract was. It only held the contract as a record of sorts sealed from the public but useful whenever disputes or other third-party agreements called for it (such as the redemption of health benefits). Or go even more extreme and disallow any form of transference of benefits short of to offspring and through death. So you bought health care by the pound, say, or by the person. And you could buy it for whomever you wanted – the old lady next door.
Thus, when you got married, you did it on your own, picked your own venue (as you do now, obviously) and those present if there were any at all served as witnesses.
But neither the government NOR society in general (because it’s a misnomer to say that marriage is between a man, a woman and the government — it has been between a man, a woman and society, with the government acting as proxy) has anything to do with the marriage.
It is literally, then, a private, libertine matter.
Do you believe that the “gay lobby” would be satisfied with this Solomonic compromise? Do you believe that the gay lobby would be ok with the idea that EVERYONE had their own contract. That marriages were called marriages if you could get someone else to call it thus (the person performing the service). So those of a religious bent would call theirs a marriage and theoretically, gays would call their relationship a marriage as well — though there was no PUBLIC acknowledgement of either the straight, religious marriage or the gay one.
I somehow doubt it.
Because if the idea is merely about whether or not gays can get married and make a commitment to one another and say to their friends that they are married, there is literally nothing to stop two gays from having a ceremony with friends today and exchanging vows to do what they can to support and love one another. True, it’s another matter to get the insurance company to agree to the vow, but I know a lot of gays, and I don’t know a lot who have had these ceremonies. Small steps count.
What I’m saying is it’s not just the religionists who want to play games with marriage, and as a libertine with a Hayekian streak, I’m not sure I’m so excited about the idea of screwing with a five millenia’s old standard.
And about polygamy. Bring it back. As long as it isn’t coerced or incestuous (then again, if you’re a Hard-line Libertarian, how do you argue against rape-less incest?). On the other hand, if you’re a liberal who believes that marriage is all about personal choice, and you believe that teenage girls are old and wise enough to have abortions without parental consent, then logically, aren’t they also old enough to marry (how is marriage a greater commitment than killing your baby)? Multiple teenage girls? Wow! What a great society! Where’s that high school?
Al Maviva
My point being, I’m not sure that what Mike Huckabee, or a bunch of folks trying to take their marital relationship to another level, has to do with the philosophical underpinnings of the gay marriage debate, and whether or not the religious right are a pack of gay bashers (or have some gay bashers as members).
Coincidentally, today is Marriage Renewal Sunday in the Catholic Church. At mass this morning, we married couples were asked to stand and renew our vows, and to pledge to incorporate greater sprirituality into our marriages, and to rededicate ourselves to our spouses. The Catholic Church also opposes gay marriage.
Am I now a member of the group of people you class as hypocritical gay-bashers? If so, Christmas will be pretty wierd this year, as I grapple with my newfound political/moral duty to be a bigot, and my lesbian sister (and her life partner) try to figure out whether to give me a beatdown, or just call the cops on me.
I don’t think this issue is as cartoonishly simple as some here would make it seem…
JKC
I think, Al, that the point you (and others) are missing is that “gay marriage” is a CIVIL issue, (at least legally speaking), not a religious one. In other words, even if gay civil marriage were to become the law of the land tomorrow, no-one is proposing that the Catholic Church (or any other church) be forced to perform religious ceremonies uniting same-sex couples. After all, a traditional Catholic would not recognize the validity of a marriage between two divorced people. That is that person’s right. The law, however, does not allow him to deny that couple the rights due a legally married couple.
Aaron
So Kimmit’s solution is to raise the legal age to marry…just kidding.
TM Lutas
The problem with all these adjustments on marriage is that if the state gives up its promotion of procreation, we’re likely to end up with a welfare state and Italian procreation rates (1.2 children) which is a great deal shy of where it needs to be (2.1 children) in order to avoid a collapse of the programs that suck down somewhere between a third and a half of our government budgets.
Now I, as a libertarian, actually am in favor of getting rid of those programs in favor of something better and the huge mess that demographic collapse would cause is one of the reasons why these programs never were a good idea in the first place.
We’ve just got barely enough time to turn the stampeding entitlements herd before it takes society over a cliff and now we’re supposed to accelerate the collapse of the programs with a demographic population collapse? No thanks! There’s some kinds of stupid we don’t have to be a part of. This one’s purely voluntary.
ape
Flagwaver – you say: “a two-parent, man/woman couple household is far and away the best environment for raising children.”
My understanding is that this contention has been successfully dismissed. Such statistics in fact show that having two parents involved in bringing up a child is important. They don’t say anything about the gender. It just so happens that most couples who raised children are a man and a women. Incidentally, and this makes total logical sense, they also show that it helps to have grandparents, friends etc.. available as part of a wider support structure.
Anyone who supports marriage should also support gay partnerships (however named). Nothing about such arrangements can harm hetero marriage no matter how much bilge about ‘antifamily’ policies is spilt by the raging theocon taliban.
ape
OOps – I meant to quote the whole sentence, and refute only the contention that a ‘man/ woman couple’ can be derived ‘inarguably’ from the data:
“There is sufficient empirical data collected on the subject at this point that it is inarguable that, in general, a two-parent, man/woman couple household is far and away the best environment for raising children.”
Flagwaver
ape,
I haven’t seen information to indicate that the results for a two parent household is basically the same, regardless of the gender of the parents. If you think about it, it is counter-intuitive. Children need the influence of both a male and a female role model for psychological, social and cultural integration. Do you have any sources? I’d be interested.
triticale
JKC, that broken wrist should have been reported to the police as a felony assault, no different than if it had happened in a bar fight.
Perhaps you would be singing a different song if, like me, you had come to the aid of a family whose teenage daughter had been put in a locked mental ward because she dared to deny an unidentified neighbor’s report that her father had bit her. No bite marks were ever found.
A family very close to us had to go into debt to defend against charges of abuse after taking their son to the emergency room with a spiral fracture in his leg. After several experienced physicians testified that the accident the parents described was more likely than the abuse presumed by an intern, the judge ordered the case striken from the record. Ten years later, when a neighbor who wanted them driven out for purposes of real estate development called in a false accusation, that old case was brought up anyway. The younger children were put in foster “care”, where the seven year old was introduced to what the record described as “inappropriate sexual behavior” and the autistic three year old was beaten and starved.
In the meantime, this “less than perfect” agency (Chicago’s DCFS) ignored as many cases of brutal abuse as the one Flagwaver has dealt with.
derek
Anyone who supports marriage should also support gay partnerships
Umm, why exactly? I’m so damn sick of the ‘if it doesn’t hurt you, then you have to support it’ argument. Just because it doesn’t ‘affect me’ directly, doesn’t mean I have to support it.
shark
I must say I find it utterly repugnant for a political figure to make a big public show of upgrading his marriage to a “covenant marriage
Why? Politicians use their marriages all the time to their advantage. No serious politician will get divorced, so they use their “marriage” as a political prop.
Frankly, I find it refreshing that this guy is using his marriage to set an example, something we wish our leaders would do. Better this than a shell marriage ala Clinton or Kerry…
Kimmitt
No serious politician will get divorced,
Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani . . . and that’s just off the top of my head in ten seconds. Everyone else here is welcome to chime in.
M. Scott Eiland
Well, to point out the obvious one–Ronald Reagan.
ape
Flagwaver –
Actually, my contention is mostly just logic. ‘Pro-family’ (ie, anti-gay – they’re not pro families) campaigners often logically conflate statistics on ‘two-parent’ to mean ‘two gender’. In fact, such statistics are about having two parents. The same arguments used ‘against’ single parents cannot be used against gay parenthood, but they just get it wrong.
One study that did look at the real issue, and found, unspuprisingly, that having two loving parents is what counts, is cited here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138575,00.html
Art Supplies
that as a music I will exempt it from that cigars entire clause. You can certainly find examples usa visa where a group split apart into factions or solo send flowers artists that weren’t as interesting, but this green card lottery is more infrequent as less relevant. There. gas grills Often when I’m walking around wearing my headphones, gas grills I see other people also wearing headphones, _ and of course I wonder what they’re listening dish network to. Today I had a very strong urge to start direct tv