Defense of Marriage

"Gay marriages" of convenience

2004-03-27T17:38:00.000-05:00

Final Highlights from Kurtz:

IRONICALLY, the form of gay matrimony that may pose the greatest threat to the institution of marriage involves heterosexuals. A Brigham Young University professor, Alan J. Hawkins, suggests an all-too-likely scenario in which two heterosexuals of the same sex might marry as a way of obtaining financial benefits. Consider the plight of an underemployed and uninsured single mother in her early 30s who sees little real prospect of marriage (to a man) in her future. Suppose she has a good friend, also female and heterosexual, who is single and childless but employed with good spousal benefits. Sooner or later, friends like this are going to start contracting same-sex marriages of convenience. The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits, will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. Her friend will gain companionship and a family life. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually.

In a narrow sense, the women and children in this arrangement would be better off. Yet the larger effects of such unions on the institution of marriage would be devastating. At a stroke, marriage would be severed not only from the complementarity of the sexes but also from its connection to romance and sexual exclusivity--and even from the hope of permanence. In Hawkins's words, the proliferation of such arrangements "would turn marriage into the moral equivalent of a Social Security benefit." The effect would be to further diminish the sense that a woman ought to be married to the father of her children. In the aggregate, what we now call out-of-wedlock births would increase. And the connection between marriage and sexual fidelity would be nonexistent.

Hawkins thinks gay marriages of convenience would be contracted in significant numbers--certainly enough to draw the attention of a media eager to tout such unions as the hip, postmodern marriages of the moment. Hawkins also believes that these unions of convenience could begin to undermine marriage's institutional foundations fairly quickly. He may be right. The gay marriage movement took more than a decade to catch fire. A movement for state-sanctioned polygamy-polyamory could take as long. And the effects of sexually open gay marriages on the ethos of monogamy will similarly occur over time. But any degree of publicity for same-sex marriages of convenience could have dramatic effects. Without further legal ado, same-sex marriages of convenience will realize the radicals' fondest hopes. Marriage will have been severed from monogamy, from sexuality, and even from the dream of permanence. Which would bring us virtually to the bottom of the slippery slope.

WE ARE FAR CLOSER to that day than anyone realizes. Does the Supreme Court's defense of sexual liberty last month in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case mean that, short of a constitutional amendment, gay marriage is inevitable? Perhaps not. Justice Scalia was surely correct to warn in his dissent that Lawrence greatly weakens the legal barriers to gay marriage. Sodomy laws, although rarely enforced, did provide a public policy basis on which a state could refuse to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. Now the grounds for that "public policy exception" have been eroded. And as Scalia warned, Lawrence's sweeping guarantees of personal autonomy in matters of sex could easily be extended to the question of who a person might choose to marry.

So it is true that, given Lawrence, the legal barriers to gay marriage are now hanging by a thread. Nonetheless, in an important respect, Scalia underestimated the resources for a successful legal argument against gay marriage. True, Lawrence eliminates moral disapprobation as an acceptable, rational basis for public policy distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But that doesn't mean there is no rational basis for blocking either same-sex marriage or polygamy.

There is a rational basis for blocking both gay marriage and polygamy, and it does not depend upon a vague or religiously based disapproval of homosexuality or polygamy. Children need the stable family environment provided by marriage. In our individualist Western society, marriage must be companionate--and therefore monogamous. Monogamy will be undermined by gay marriage itself, and by gay marriage's ushering in of polygamy and polyamory.

This argument ought to be sufficient to pass the test of rational scrutiny set by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas. Certainly, the slippery slope argument was at the center of the legislative debate on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and so should protect that act from being voided on the same grounds as Texas's sodomy law. But of course, given the majority's sweeping declarations in Lawrence, and the hostility of the legal elite to traditional marriage, it may well be foolish to rely on the Supreme Court to uphold either state or federal Defense of Marriage Acts.

This is the case, in a nutshell, for something like the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, which would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. At a stroke, such an amendment would block gay marriage, polygamy, polyamory, and the replacement of marriage by a contract system. Whatever the courts might make of the slippery slope argument, the broader public will take it seriously. Since Lawrence, we have already heard from Jon Carroll in the San Francisco Chronicle calling for legalized polygamy. Judith Levine in the Village Voice has made a plea for group marriage. And Michael Kinsley--no queer theorist but a completely mainstream journalist--has publicly called for the legal abolition of marriage. So the most radical proposal of all has now moved out of the law schools and legal commissions, and onto the front burner of public discussion.

Fair-minded people differ on the matter of homosexuality. I happen to think that sodomy laws should have been repealed (although legislatively). I also believe that our increased social tolerance for homosexuality is generally a good thing. But the core issue here is not homosexuality; it is marriage. Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all.

Triple parenting

2004-03-27T17:33:00.000-05:00

More Kurtz Highlights:

POLYGAMY, POLYAMORY, and the abolition of marriage are bad ideas. But what has that got to do with gay marriage? The reason these ideas are connected is that gay marriage is increasingly being treated as a civil rights issue. Once we say that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state, it becomes next to impossible to deny that same right to polygamists, polyamorists, or even cohabiting relatives and friends. And once everyone's relationship is recognized, marriage is gone, and only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left. The only way to stop gay marriage from launching a slide down this slope is if there is a compelling state interest in blocking polygamy or polyamory that does not also apply to gay marriage. Many would agree that the state has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy and polyamory from undermining the ethos of monogamy at the core of marriage. The trouble is, gay marriage itself threatens the ethos of monogamy.

The "conservative" case for gay marriage holds that state-sanctioned marriage will reduce gay male promiscuity. But what if the effect works in reverse? What if, instead of marriage reducing gay promiscuity, sexually open gay couples help redefine marriage as a non-monogamous institution? There is evidence that this is exactly what will happen.

Consider sociologist Gretchen Stiers's 1998 study "From this Day Forward" (Stiers favors gay marriage, and calls herself a lesbian "queer theorist"). "From this Day Forward" reports that while exceedingly few of even the most committed gay and lesbian couples surveyed believe that marriage will strengthen and stabilize their personal relationships, nearly half of the surveyed couples who actually disdain traditional marriage (and even gay commitment ceremonies) will nonetheless get married. Why? For the financial and legal benefits of marriage. And Stiers's study suggests that many radical gays and lesbians who yearn to see marriage abolished (and multiple sexual unions legitimized) intend to marry, not only as a way of securing benefits but as part of a self-conscious attempt to subvert the institution of marriage. Stiers's study suggests that the "subversive" intentions of the radical legal theorists are shared by a significant portion of the gay community itself.

...This year, there was a triple parenting case in Canada involving a lesbian couple and a sperm donor. The judge made it clear that he wanted to assign parental status to all three adults but held back because he said he lacked jurisdiction. On this issue, the United States is already in "advance" of Canada. Martha Ertman is now pointing to a 2000 Minnesota case (La Chapelle v. Mitten) in which a court did grant parental rights to lesbian partners and a sperm donor. Ertman argues that this case creates a legal precedent for state-sanctioned polyamory.

The family law radicals

2004-03-27T17:23:00.000-05:00

More Kurtz Highlights:

STATE-SANCTIONED polyamory is now the cutting-edge issue among scholars of family law. The preeminent school of thought in academic family law has its origins in the arguments of radical gay activists who once opposed same-sex marriage. In the early nineties, radicals like longtime National Gay and Lesbian Task Force policy director Paula Ettelbrick spoke out against making legal marriage a priority for the gay rights movement. Marriage, Ettelbrick reminded her fellow activists, "has long been the focus of radical feminist revulsion."

Promoting polyamory is the ideal way to "radically reorder society's view of the family," and Ettelbrick, who has since formally signed on as a supporter of gay marriage (and is frequently quoted by the press), is now part of a movement that hopes to use gay marriage as an opening to press for state-sanctioned polyamory. Ettelbrick teaches law at the University of Michigan, New York University, Barnard, and Columbia. She has a lot of company.

But it's University of Utah law professor Martha Ertman who stands on the cutting edge of family law. Building on Fineman's proposals for the abolition of legal marriage, Ertman has offered a legal template for a sweeping relationship contract system modeled on corporate law. (See the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, Winter 2001.) Ertman wants state-sanctioned polyamory, legally organized on the model of limited liability companies.

In arguing for the replacement of marriage with a contract system that accommodates polyamory, Ertman notes that legal and social hostility to polygamy and polyamory are decreasing. She goes on astutely to imply that the increased openness of homosexual partnerships is slowly collapsing the taboo against polygamy and polyamory. And Ertman is frank about the purpose of her proposed reform--to render the distinction between traditional marriage and polyamory "morally neutral."

In 1996, in the Michigan Law Review, David Chambers, a professor of law at the University of Michigan and another prominent member of this group, explained why radical opponents of marriage ought to support gay marriage. Rather than reinforcing a two-person definition of marriage, argued Chambers, gay marriage would make society more accepting of further legal changes. "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."

Gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself as a legal category, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law. As Chambers put it, "All desirable changes in family law need not be made at once."

Polyamory

2004-03-27T17:11:00.000-05:00

Kurtz writes:

Polyamorists proselytize for "responsible non-monogamy"--open, loving, and stable sexual relationships among more than two people. The modern polyamory movement took off in the mid-nineties--partly because of the growth of the Internet (with its confidentiality), but also in parallel to, and inspired by, the rising gay marriage movement.

Unlike classic polygamy, which features one man and several women, polyamory comprises a bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth. (For details, see Deborah Anapol's "Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits," one of the movement's authoritative guides, or Google the word polyamory.)

Polyamorists are enthusiastic proponents of same-sex marriage. Obviously, any attempt to restrict marriage to a single man and woman would prevent the legalization of polyamory. After passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, an article appeared in Loving More, the flagship magazine of the polyamory movement, calling for the creation of a polyamorist rights movement modeled on the movement for gay rights. The piece was published under the pen name Joy Singer... taking a leaf from the gay marriage movement, Singer suggested starting small. A campaign for hospital visitation rights for polyamorous spouses would be the way to begin. Full marriage and adoption rights would come later. Again using the gay marriage movement as a model, Singer called for careful selection of acceptable public spokesmen (i.e., people from longstanding poly families with children). Singer even published a speech by Iowa state legislator Ed Fallon on behalf of gay marriage, arguing that the goal would be to get a congressman to give exactly the same speech as Fallon, but substituting the word "poly" for "gay" throughout. Try telling polyamorists that the link between gay marriage and group marriage is a mirage.

The flexible, egalitarian, and altogether postmodern polyamorists are more likely to influence the larger society than Mormon polygamists. The polyamorists go after monogamy in a way that resonates with America's secular, post-sixties culture. Yet the fundamental drawback is the same for Mormons and polyamorists alike. Polyamory websites are filled with chatter about jealousy, the problem that will not go away. Inevitably, group marriages based on modern principles of companionate love, without religious rules and restraints, are unstable. Like the short-lived hippie communes, group marriages will be broken on the contradiction between companionate love and group solidarity. And children will pay the price. The harms of state-sanctioned polyamorous marriage would extend well beyond the polyamorists themselves. Once monogamy is defined out of marriage, it will be next to impossible to educate a new generation in what it takes to keep companionate marriage intact. State-sanctioned polyamory would spell the effective end of marriage. And that is precisely what polyamory's new--and surprisingly influential--defenders are aiming for.

The problem with the new, impoverished version of marriage being foisted on our culture:

2004-03-27T16:50:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher writes about how the diluted and hollow version of marriage being peddled boils down to a set of "Legal Goodies." -- a "benefits-grab, a way of distributing stuff to anyone who wants to claim it. Everyone has the right to have the law recognize their own private vision of marriage, because nothing important hangs on marriage."

From there it is a short hop to polygamy. After all, if Unitarian ministers in New Paltz have a constitutional right to create legal marriages of any kind they choose, then so do Muslim clergy in Brooklyn.

Many advocates of same-sex marriage recognize that it is part of a strategy of deconstructing any social ideal in family or sexual life. David L. Chambers, a distinguished law professor at the University of Michigan, laid out the underlying connection in a law review article: "If the law of marriage can be seen as facilitating the opportunities of two people to live an emotional life that they find satisfying -- rather than as imposing a view of proper relationships -- the law ought to be able to achieve the same for units of more than two."

When the core norm of marriage is under sustained legal attack, the proper response is not to "leave it to the states." As Edwin Meese pointed out in The Wall Street Journal, if marriage really matters, it matters in all 50 states. Some things really are fundamentals of our civilization. We don't permit states to "experiment" with communist forms of government. We don't allow judges to redefine what a corporation is. If marriage really matters, the right response to a sustained legal attack on our marriage norms is to use the constitutional process our forefathers gave to us to reaffirm our social ideal.

In the United Sates of America, marriage means something: the union of husband and wife who can give to their children a mother and a father.

The "Bigot" Red Herring

2004-03-27T11:31:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher writes about the idiocy (or perhaps disingenousness) of the slander that those seeking to defend marriage are somehow "bigots".

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20040303.shtml

The latest complaint about President Bush: By endorsing a federal marriage amendment, he is "writing discrimination into the Constitution." Rosie O'Donnell called the president's words "vile" and "hateful."

Maybe she's so angry because she knows she is on the losing side of history... The more Americans hear about same-sex marriage, the less they like it. And it's not just Republicans or conservatives: 55 percent of Democrats support a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Perhaps Americans increasingly realize that only a national definition of marriage will end the current lawless circus, with elected officials flouting the law and judges busily rewriting it...

Absent a constitutional amendment, marriage will end up a political football, tossed about by judges like those in Massachusetts: four people so arrogant, ignorant and mean-spirited they can't think of a single reason why keeping the normal definition of marriage matters. Judges and politicians like that imply that the 60 percent of black Americans and 60 percent of white Americans in a November Pew poll who say they oppose gay marriage must be motivated by "animus."

Translation? You're a bigot.

Take a moment and listen: Same-sex marriage advocates are saying there is no difference between two men being intimate and a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising children. They are saying that the opposite idea, that mothers and fathers both matter, is a form of hate, ignorance, animus, bias. That's why they claim that the normal definition of marriage is "discrimination."

Do you need more evidence that accepting same-sex marriage is not a small add-on to our marriage laws but a radical transformation of them? If preferring husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers together is "bias" or "discrimination," then people like me who hold such views are bigots. In the America that Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) dreams of, the idea that children deserve mothers and fathers will become the legal and moral equivalent of racism. Their logic leads not to live-and-let-live tolerance, but to an ugly culture war, using the law to root out public expression of such "prejudices." Public school curriculums will be changed to teach the new social norms to your kids (they are already being developed). Tax-exempt status for faith-based organizations that fail to adhere to the new religion will be at risk.

What about laws against interracial marriage? Racist marriage laws had nothing to do with the great, historic, cross-cultural purposes of marriage. They were about keeping the races separate so that one race could oppress the other. By contrast, it is simply ludicrous to imagine that marriage was dreamed up in order to express animus toward anyone. Today, one-third of babies are born outside of marriage and end up fatherless; the deep, ongoing need for an institution that points men and women to the only kind of sexual union that protects both them and their children could not be clearer.

Imposing unisex marriage laws is not like striking down bans on interracial marriage. San Francisco is not Selma. A constitutional amendment is not a national crisis.

Our founding fathers deliberately designed the process to be difficult, so that only the most worthy proposals could pass muster.

Marriage is increasingly looking like one of those rare issues: not a wedge that divides, but a cause that unites Americans.

Radically redifining (and undermining) Marriage - San Fancisco

2004-03-27T11:25:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher writes:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20040226.shtml

The marriage application was altered, as it had to be, to fit the radically transformed institution the mayor of San Francisco tried to create. "I have given one too many wedding gifts to people in my life, and for a minute I thought it was time for payback," one of these same-sex couples told The New York Times. "But what I really want is the 1049 federal rights that come with marriage."

To make this unisex dream come true, the marriage application was the first thing that had to go. The spaces for "bride" and "groom" were eliminated, replaced by "first applicant" and "second applicant."

Do you, the first applicant, take the second applicant to be a lawfully wedded applicant for 1049 federal benefits for the rest of your life?

It is a harbinger of things to come. All of the time-honored assumptions of marriage -- bride and groom, husband and wife, mother and father -- must be rewritten to accommodate a tiny fraction of the population who wants to form alternative families. When I suggested in a recent exchange with gay civil rights advocate Evan Wolfson that marriage was about affirming the ideal that both mothers and fathers matter to children, he denounced the idea as an "offensive proposition."

...one of many consequences of gay marriage: Home economics classes, abstinence education, marriage and family life courses, even teen pregnancy prevention courses -- anywhere the word "marriage" is used in public schools, the new unisex version of marriage could be pushed.

Marriage is not a private application for federal benefits. It is a shared public act, a social institution that depends on a common, shared culture of marriage.

Or not, as the case may be, if the special-interests have their way in San Francisco.

Black Clergymen Come Out Against Gay Marriage

2004-03-27T11:20:00.000-05:00

Tuesday, March 23, 2004
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114936,00.html

ATLANTA — More than two dozen black pastors added their voice to the critics of same-sex marriage, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement and defending marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Jones and 29 pastors rallied late Monday with their supporters at an Atlanta-area church where they signed a declaration outlining their beliefs on marriage and religion.

The declaration is meant to pressure state representatives to approve a constitutional ban on gay marriages, which will be considered again by the Georgia House as soon as this week.

The declaration, to be presented to state leaders Wednesday or Thursday, says same-sex marriage is not a civil right, and marriage between a man and a woman is important because it's necessary for the upbringing of children.

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Georgia, but supporters of the ban say the constitution needs to be changed to make sure a judge does not direct Georgia to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

"It is a threat to who we are and what we stand for," said Bishop William Shields of Hopewell Baptist Church. "If nothing else gets us out of the pews, this ought to."

Parenting means Marrying

2004-03-27T11:07:00.000-05:00

Kurtz Rocks, yet again. I wish there were more people out there with his intellectual power who were tackling this issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200403230851.asp

PARENTING MEANS MARRYING
Here is what Sensing misses: In America, parenthood still means marriage. Despite the problems of the underclass, and despite the prevalence of premarital cohabitation, the vast majority of Americans believe that parents ought to be married. True, divorce has seriously disrupted the connection between marriage and parenthood. Yet a comparison to Scandinavia and the rest of Europe immediately reveals that Americans who wish to become parents marry.

It's easy... to overlook the enormous remaining strength of the connection between marriage and parenthood in America -- because traditionalists compare the present to the model of marriage that prevailed in the '50s. But compare the America of today to what is happening in Scandinavia -- or to the utopian visions of the anti-marriage radicals -- and the recalcitrant influence of tradition on the present shines clear. For all the hits that marriage has taken, the connection between marriage and parenthood in America is still surprisingly robust.

Let's turn our gaze from a despairing traditionalist like Sensing to a despairing radical, like American University law professor Nancy Polikoff... would like to see legal marriage abolished. For Polikoff, gay marriage is only acceptable if it serves as a means to that end.

...[It] is wrong about the causal significance of gay marriage: While it's true that the movement for gay marriage is an effect of the pill -- and of the other forces weakening traditional marriage -- it is also true that gay marriage would immensely further marital decline, by breaking the remaining (and remarkably powerful) connection between marriage and parenthood. Gay marriage -- part and parcel of the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that dominates in Scandinavia -- would move us toward that system of parental cohabitation, favored by radicals like Polikoff, yet still thankfully alien to the vast majority of Americans...

SCORCHED-EARTH MARRIAGE REFORM?
The best way to achieve this middle point (between the '50s and the '60s) is to pass an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman -- and to block the equalization of marriage and cohabitation proposed by the American Law Institute. Once that's achieved, we can concentrate on feasible divorce reform. As I've said before, I think a waiting period for divorce for couples with children is the way to go. That "draws the line" where it needs to be drawn -- at the connection between marriage and parenthood.

And the all-or-nothing polemic of gay-marriage advocates plays all too easily on the ambivalence of those Americans in the moderate middle ground on family issues. Increasingly, gay-marriage advocates are trying to set up an equation by which acceptance of contraception, no-fault divorce, and premarital cohabitation must inevitably entail acceptance of gay marriage. Logically, that does not follow: We can, and should, draw a line between them.

Why Federalism Fails with respect to Marriage

2004-03-27T10:53:00.000-05:00

Another great essay by "the great one".

I've argued for a long time along a similar line -- such contradictory definitions of marriage is untenable. It will not work to have people suddenly go from married to not-married and them back to being married while simply driving down some highway.

Marriage is analogous to environmental law -- it is a bad idea to allow states to set their own pollution standards, because you can end up with one state setting low standards since their polluted air and water flows over into surrounding states which may have very different standards.

Here are the most important parts, but go read the whole thing.
----------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200403150902.asp

Senator Orrin Hatch may soon propose a constitutional amendment that would permit a state-by-state patchwork definition of marriage. (National Review has endorsed the Hatch alternative.) Some see this proposal as an embodiment of federalist principles; it is not. The notion that federalism permits or demands a hodgepodge definition of marriage fundamentally misunderstands the family's place in the structure of American democracy. This nation must have — and will have — a uniform definition of marriage.

It is true that, in our federal system, the states have a responsibility to regulate marriage. In accordance with the principles of federalism, the states can and should be permitted to regulate such matters as degree of consanguinity, age of consent, and the rules of divorce. Yet it is a categorical error to subject the essential definition of marriage to state regulation. The Founders did not understand either federalism or the family in this way.

The Founders took the fundamental meaning of marriage for granted. To them, and to generations of Americans that followed them, marriage and family were part of an extra-governmental realm upon which the sphere of politics depended for its survival. While it was thought that the states could adjust the tangential specifics of our taken-for-granted social institutions, the Founders never imagined that legislatures or courts might revise the basic, definitional aspects of marriage itself.

Consider that the state of Utah was only admitted to the union on the condition that it would abandon polygamy. That precedent clearly shows that, when the fundamental definition of marriage was at stake, a uniform, national solution was deemed necessary and proper. To understand the place of marriage and family in American democracy, we must return to Tocqueville. Tocqueville saw marriage and family as one of several extra-political institutions on which healthy democracy rested: These extra-political institutions had the effect of countering dangerous trends toward excessive individualism, materialism, and state centralization.

We can see the truth of Tocqueville's insight when considering Scandinavia. The Scandinavian family has collapsed — and has been replaced by a massive, centralized welfare state. If the American family is dissolved by social redefinition of marriage, then just as Tocqueville predicted, we shall be subject to the "soft despotism" of a centralized bureaucracy. In Scandinavia, this has already happened.

...As I showed some years ago in "The Right Balance," this country has never truly experienced a situation in which a substantial number of marriages were valid in only some states. Despite legal technicalities that may permit a state-by-state hodgepodge, in practical terms, states virtually never refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states. The reason is that, although technically permissible, a refusal of recognition would create an intolerable rift within the body politic, and would force intolerable injustices on individuals. What our history (from the Utah question, to the miscegenation issue, to the "public-policy exception") actually proves is that, even when legal technicalities might theoretically permit a patchwork definition of marriage, marriage continually shows itself to require national uniformity.

Yet even this does not fully describe what's at stake. In Tocqueville's terms, this is an issue of public mores. And on the most fundamental questions, public mores in the United States are shaped at the national level. The meaning of marriage is determined by thousands of cultural messages, sent through a vast array of modern media. The lion's share of those media is national in scope. Once we have gay marriage in even a few states, the news and entertainment industries will seize on those states to magnify and spread the new meaning of marriage across the entire country. There is simply no way, in the modern age, to confine the fundamental cultural meaning of marriage within the borders of one or a few states.

My work on Scandinavia turns on the shared cultural understanding of what marriage means. The cultural separation of marriage from parenthood in Scandinavia gave rise to, and was reinforced by, the advent of same-sex registered partnerships. Gay marriage in a few liberal states here — especially states that are home to national media — would effectively widen the cultural separation of marriage from parenthood throughout the entire country. Just as the Scandinavian system has spread to England, and from England to formerly conservative Ireland, the new system of mores will spread from state to state in America. Once the big states adopt gay marriage, the cultural effect will be national in its reach.

This is not a question of degree — of relatively high or low taxation, for example. This is a question of a fundamental pillar of our culture. We've already seen, with the spread of copycat civil disobedience across the states, how quickly cultural movements are nationalized. Our differences on gay marriage will not rest or resolve until the issue has been decided nationally.

But the most important point to recall is that, rightly understood, the basic definition of marriage — the issue of its intrinsic connection to the potential for a man and a woman to create and nurture life — has never been governed by the states. This has always transcended state regulation; has always existed in a realm outside of politics. It always had to: It was the foundation upon which the American political system rested in the first place.

Yet now, in a truly unprecedented way, the marriage issue has been forced into the political sphere, and the state-by-state Hatch amendment does nothing to solve the problem. The definition of marriage is the United States is, was, and always will be national. The only question remaining is, What will the definition be?

Absense of FMA -- Implications

2004-03-27T10:49:00.000-05:00

Although more of a legal perspective than I normally care for, Kurtz lays out the national and cultural implications of those seeking to undermine marriage.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200403040846.asp

...In the absence of a Federal Marriage Amendment, the country will shortly be split into two large groups of states — one of which will recognize same-sex marriages, and one of which will not. It will be the red/blue map in a whole new light.

And let it be noted that the mere existence of a statutory DOMA is no guarantee that a state will be able to invoke the public-policy exception, and thus refuse recognition to out-of-state same-sex marriages. As we've seen in California, even a DOMA statute passed in public referendum by a large majority is in danger of being voided by state courts on equal-protection and due-process grounds.

In short, two months before the first fully legal gay marriages take place in Massachusetts, a roadmap for the spread of the Massachusetts decision well beyond state lines is emerging. Increasingly, Americans will come to see that there are only two real choices on this issue. The United States is going to have a national definition of marriage. Either gay marriage will be imposed on the nation by the courts — on equal-protection and due-process grounds. Or there will be a Federal Marriage Amendment.

The Real Impact Of Gay Marriage On Society

2004-03-27T10:32:00.000-05:00

Two great blubs from Gallagher & Kurtz:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,114697,00.html

Maggie Gallagher, co-author of “The Case for Marriage,” recently testified in front of the Senate that gay marriage activists are misrepresenting the impact gay marriage will have.

“Is this a small add-on that will only affect a small number of children living with same-sex couples? Or will changing the legal definition of marriage change the way marriage will mean to everyone?” she asked. “I think the same-sex marriage advocates are not being clear or honest about what a big change this will be. We are all going to have to be re-educated.”

Gallagher claims that with the legal onset of gay marriage, governments will be in the position of forcing onto citizens a belief system that equates homosexuality with heterosexuality — through public schools, taxpayer-funded programs like charities and non-profits, workplaces and even faith-based organizations that receive public dollars.

“It will be a new legal and social norm and the law is going to enforce this new social and legal norm on people,” she said.

Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow with the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, couldn’t disagree more. He said the state of marriage in American society is already undermined by high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birth rates.

Gay marriage, he said, will reinforce the idea that traditional marriages formed for the purpose of having children and providing a healthy mother-father environment is out, and alternative partnerships are in. He points to a decade of legalized gay unions in Scandinavia, where marriage rates have declined as the number of babies born to cohabitating has risen.

“The idea of marriage is outdated,” he said. “Parents lost the sense that marriage was about being a parent.”

Kurtz said he does not anticipate a future “patchwork” of state laws in which some will be gay marriage-friendly while others will not recognize the unions. Either a uniform definition of marriage between a man and a woman will be affirmed or not. In the case of the latter, he warned, “We will eventually turn into Scandinavia.”

On Bush and Marriage

2004-02-24T19:28:00.000-05:00

In an interesting article, B. Preston writes:

What we have in President George W. Bush is a man who takes stands. He does not waffle, he does not try to be all things to all people, and he does not try to be on three sides of a two-sided issue. He is a grown-up with strong beliefs and the backbone to say what he believes and to act based on those beliefs. He is exactly the right man in the right place at the right time.

... he has come out backing a federal marriage amendment that if passed will keep activist judges and rogue public officials from overriding the clear and expressed will of the people in keeping the sanctity of marriage defined as between one man and one woman. President Bush has not tried to have this issue both ways, because as an adult he recognizes that you cannot have it both ways sometimes. You can't just close your eyes and hope the thorny issues magically go away. Difficult choices must be made for the greater good, in this case preserving the definition of marriage as it has stood in Western thought and culture for millenia. President Bush has taken his stand.

Preston has elegantly put into words the assorted thoughts and feelings that many of us have been struggling to express.

2004-02-24T17:19:00.000-05:00

Email your Comments

2004-02-24T16:39:00.000-05:00

Dems and Journalists Hiding Behind Activist Judges

Rod Dreher, responding to a comment by Stanley Kurtz writes about:

...how a Democratic Party pal fairly high up said that the Dems were terrified of the gay marriage issue. At the top of the party, most of the leadership had no problem with gay marriage. But they knew that it was a big problem for a substantial number of voters. The problem: how to see that gay marriage happens without seeming to be advocates for it, and thus paying a political price at the polls? My guess is that a number of newspaper editorial boards, whether they're conscious of it or not, are thinking along the same lines. And what they've come up with is a strategy to let the courts do the heavy lifting, and take the brunt of the blame for doing what the ed boards in truth want to see happen , but don't want to take the heat for.
I think the Dems are going to follow the same strategy -- indeed, it's the only strategy that makes a lick of sense from their perspective. If they keep mouthing the mantra We shouldn't amend the constitution, then they get to look like principled conservatives, even though we have reached the point where we are either going to have national gay marriage by judicial fiat, or we're going to have a constitutional amendment to put a brake on activist judges...

2004-02-24T16:21:00.000-05:00

Plan to use "gay marriage" to change meaning of marriage for everyone.

Stanley Kurtz writes on use of "gay marriage" to change meaning of marriage for everyone.

"Last Monday, February 16, Jonathan Katz, executive coordinator of a gay and lesbian studies program at Yale University, appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation, with Neal Conan. Katz expressed the hope that gay marriage could change the meaning of marriage for everyone. Here's a quote:

I'm also perhaps Pollyannaish enough to believe that we may, in fact, help move the state perspective on marriage by virtue of our inclusion towards a much broader, much more capacious view. I'm thinking even of the fact of monogamy, which is both one of the pillars of heterosexual marriage and perhaps its key source of trauma. Could it be that the inclusion of lesbian and gay same-sex marriage may, in fact, sort of de-center the notion of monogamy and allow the prospect that marriage need not be an exclusive sexual relationship among people? I think it's possible....I would never five years ago have defined myself as an advocate of marriage. In fact, the very institution smacked of precisely that which I lived my life in opposition to. But because it has cohered as perhaps the litmus test of civil rights now, because it carries real social benefits, and because I think it perhaps furthers the uncoupling of the state and the church in this country, which I thought was promised in our Constitution, then I'm all for it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We're going to see a great deal more of this sort of talk once gay marriages get established. In cutting edge articles and films--and eventually, television shows--we're going to see stories on how gay marriages are redefining the meaning of marriage for everyone. Gay marriage is going to be used by the cultural left to further its ends. You can bet on it.

2004-02-24T16:05:00.000-05:00

President Calls for Consitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage

Text of President Bush's speech (with my highlighting) supporting a constitutional amendment to protect marriage:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you. Please be seated.

Good morning.

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we're to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Thank you very much.

Religious View

2004-02-24T15:25:00.000-05:00

Although I'm not particularly interested in the religious view regarding the issue of marriage, I came across this excellent piece by Donald Sensing and wanted to share it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

...I used to think that Mr. Sullivan was at least trying to be rational about his favorite subject, but no more. And that's okay - he has a right to be as partisan about homosexuality as anything else - but it's a pity he tars with a broad brush those who disagree…

The great majority of churches' doctrines hold that adultery, fornication and homosexual practice are all contrary to biblical teaching.

The writer Sullivan cites approvingly simply says, basically, that because the church doesn't ruthlessly enforce the other prohibitions that it should not embrace homosexual practice and marriage - that is, the things that Sullivan promotes.

In fact, there are vigorous programs and ministries in many churches and denominations that grapple with these issues. That they are obviously not wholly successful, by Sullivan's lights, does not mean they are wholly unsuccessful. And it certainly doesn't mean that unless churches become rabid fundamentalists they have no moral right to address this issue.

…For the church's historic teaching about homosexual relations has never been that they are divinely endorsed and therefore should be embraced. Unlike pre-adultery or pre-divorce marriages, which exist within the covenant of divine grace, homosexual unions have never been held to exist within the covenant of grace to begin with.

It is thus not hypocritical for the church to "tolerate divorce" while rejecting homosexuality. The church does not tolerate divorce; it does support divorced persons who desire to be made whole again through the grace of Christ. While divorce or adultery are sinful, by Christ's own words (see Mark 3) they are not unforgivable. Churches do maintain, though, that repetition of sexual sin (or any other) is not to be condoned. As Paul said, we must not make sin abound thinking that grace will thereby increase.

Homosexual practice is not unforgivable in the beliefs of any church I know of. But like adultery or for that matter thievery or any other sin one cares to name, the issue is that repentance is key to restoration. Repentance isn't simply feeling bad about something; it's Hebrew word actually means to change course, to take a new direction. Repentance means to reject the sin and live anew.

So the position of the church regarding homosexual practice is in fact consistent with its position regarding divorce and adultery: all alike are sinful and all alike require their practitioners to cease their practice. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11), "Go and sin no more," not, "Adultery isn't really sinful."

But that's precisely what Sullivan either does not recognize or does recognize and is angered by. For his real objection is that the church will not list homosexual conduct on the "approved" side of the ledger. All the objections about divorce and adultery are red herrings.

The “Gay” Election

2004-02-12T17:59:00.000-05:00

More Kurtz on the political fallout from attempts to fundamentally change marriage:

...The public is not going to like this. Precisely because gay marriage is such an awkward and polarizing subject, we'll see a strong reaction against the Massachusetts liberals and activist judges who've forced this conflict on an unwilling country. And moves to pass constitutional amendments in state after state are going to make the idea of amending the federal constitution seem a lot less strange.

It's a good thing, too. That's because, even if every state besides Massachusetts were to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, gay marriage could still be nationalized by a decision of the United States Supreme Court. And it's a certainty that a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act will work its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court sometime in the next few years.

If the Court declines to impose gay marriage on the country as a whole, the confusion will continue. The only way the Court can impose uniformity and stem the conflict is to nationalize gay marriage. Only passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment can impose uniformity in the other direction. So it's going to be a race between the Supreme Court and the amendment process to resolve the issue nationally one way or the other. Until then, our culture war over gay marriage will be at fever pitch...

THE NOT-SO-GAY CANDIDATE
John Kerry, on the other hand, is greatly endangered by the gay-marriage issue. And the problem goes well beyond the powerful association soon to be set up in the public mind between gay marriage, Massachusetts liberalism, activist judges, the Democratic party, and John Kerry.

For starters, John Kerry was one of only 14 senators who voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Although Senator Kerry now claims to be against gay marriage, he is going to have a very tough time explaining that vote. In effect, a vote against DOMA is a vote to nationalize gay marriage. Kerry refused to take even the most minimal steps to prevent four activist Massachusetts judges from imposing gay marriage on the country. That is going to hurt him.

...In the end, nothing could be fairer than to link John Kerry to the actions of his state's Supreme Judicial Court. In truth, Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal of exactly the same stripe as the majority justices in Goodridge. If John Kerry is elected, gay marriage will surely be nationalized by the end of his term. A Bush defeat would take the wind out of the sails of the campaign for the Federal Marriage Amendment, assure liberal judges that no serious consequences will arise from nationalization, and bring more Goodridge-style liberals onto the courts. A Bush victory, on the other hand, would keep the FMA alive, would help signal the courts that they've gone too far, and would stop the proliferation of activist judges on our courts. Whatever else it will be, this election will be a national referendum on gay marriage. That looks like bad news for John Kerry and the Democrats.

Defining Deviancy Up

2004-02-12T17:49:00.000-05:00

A great article by one of the most insightful authors around. Here's a sample, then go read the whole thing here.

Defining Deviancy Up

By Charles Krauthammer

Publication Date: September 13, 1993

In 1940, a survey was taken of teachers asking them to list the five most important problems in school. They were: (1) talking out of turn; (2) chewing gum; (3) making noise; (4) running in halls; and (5) cutting in line.

Fifty years later, the survey was repeated. The 1990 list was substantially revised: (1) drug abuse; (2) alcohol abuse; (3) pregnancy; (4) suicide; (5) rape.

One could cite a mountain of statistics. One could supply one's own anecdotal evidence. But this list will suffice to make the obvious point that there has been an explosion of deviancy in American society over the last fifty years. Things have gotten out of hand.

How have we dealt with that? Daniel Patrick Moynihan offers an arresting view in a recent essay in The American Scholar entitled "Defining Deviancy Down." His point is that deviancy--crime, broken homes, mental illness--has reached such vast and incomprehensible proportions that we have had to adopt a singular form of denial: We deal with the epidemic by simply defining away most of the disease. We lower the threshold for what we are prepared to call normal in order to keep the volume of deviancy--redefined deviancy--within manageable proportions.

Since 1960, for example, the incidence of single parenthood has more than tripled. It now afflicts--and anyone acquainted with the figures for poverty and the various social pathologies associated with single-parenthood knows that "afflicts" is the right word--more than one-quarter of all American children. As the problem has grown, however, it has been systematically redefined by the culture--by social workers, intellectuals, and most famously by the mass media--as simply another lifestyle choice. Dan Quayle may have been right, but Murphy Brown got the better ratings...

Preventing the deinstitutionalizing of Marriage

2004-02-12T17:41:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher writes:

...Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.

Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.

One reason that all major world religions strive to channel human sexuality toward this relatively narrow definition of marriage -- fruitful, potentially procreative sex between men and women (while either discouraging or merely tolerating other forms of sexual expression) -- is that only societies that adopt this sexual ethic grow to become large, complex cultures in the first place...

2004-02-12T17:30:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher was quite prescient regarding the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment

Walter Faunteroy, the great civil rights leader and president of the National Black Leadership Roundtable:

At a press conference held last week, the Rev. Faunteroy dramatically threw his support for the classic understanding of marriage as a sexual rather than a unisex union. He "enthusiastically" joined the "nonpartisan research and education organization," the Alliance for Marriage (www.allianceformarriage.org), in "promoting marriage," "addressing the crisis of fatherless families," and supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment, which reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. "

"Since I left the White House with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on July 2, 1964, upon the signing by President Lyndon Baines Johnson of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we in the African American community have experienced a 400 percent increase in children being reared in fatherless families. In 1964, 25 percent of African American children were born out of wedlock. Today it is up to 80 percent of our children being born out of wedlock and reared in households without the presence of both of their parents."

What does this have to do with gay marriage? By ripping marriage out of its sexual roots, gay marriage would redefine marriage for everyone in ways that are profoundly destructive to the process of social recovery Faunteroy seeks. Ideas have consequences. When a court orders gay marriage (which gay activist Evan Wolfson predicts will be in less than five years), then the law will announce that procreation is not any part of the public purpose of marriage, that children do not need mothers and fathers, and that men and women do not need each other. Various institutions, including your child's school, will be turned into mandatory carriers of this new ideology.

Is opposing this trend gay-bashing? Faunteroy does not think so: "I respect the right of any and every citizen to enter binding contracts with one another that are upheld by the courts of law in this country. Every gay or lesbian citizen has that right now, but that right, in my view, does not extend to redefining the institution of marriage for the purpose of legalizing a lifestyle that one has chosen."

Gay activists argue that those of us who oppose unisex marriage (the majority of Americans) are hate-mongers and bigots, like segregationists in the old South. One reporter at the press conference asked, "How can you engage in such a hateful attack on gays and lesbians?" The ACLU declared the amendment "the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb. It will wipe out every single law protecting gay and lesbian families and other unmarried couples."

Of course, the Federal Marriage Amendment does no such thing. Legislatures or private corporations would still be free to extend benefits to unmarried couples or others if they chose (a fact creating opposition to the FMA among some right-wing religious groups). The only thing this carefully drawn, measured, centrist amendment would do is forbid judges from mistaking our 5,000-year-old shared understanding of marriage as the union of male and female for a violation of human rights of people who choose alternate arrangements.

The need for such an amendment became dramatically clear in the aftermath of the New York Court of Appeals' recent, extraordinary, tyrannical decision that Yeshiva University, a private, religious institution, cannot reserve its married student housing for married students without violating New York City's ban on discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation."

Recognition of Problems with "Gay Marriage"

2004-02-12T17:09:00.000-05:00

Stanley Kurtz notes how a pro "gay marriage" libertarian concures with his predictions:

Lately I’ve had a lot to say about Scandinavian gay marriage–and the relationship between marriage and parenthood. For years, though, I’ve been arguing that gay marriage is likely to roll us down the slippery slope to polygamy/polyamory. Almost every time I’ve published a piece on the polygamy/polyamory issue, a howling chorus of (largely libertarian) critics has angrily dismissed the argument as absurd. After my comprehensive treatment of the issue in “Beyond Gay Marriage,” though, the baying chorus fell silent. As far as I know, no one has offered a sustained (much less effective) critique of that piece. Now, an influential libertarian who favors gay marriage has acknowledged the power of the slippery-slope argument. In “Opening Marriage,” (Reason, March 2004) Cathy Young asks whether same-sex unions pave the way for polygamy. Her answer seems to be, “Quite possibly.”

Cathy Young begins her piece on gay marriage and polygamy by noting that prominent pro-gay marriage scholars like Richard Posner and Eugene Volokh take the slippery-slope argument seriously. She points out that supposedly “hysterical” warnings that gay marriage would follow from laws banning discrimination by gender or sexual orientation were ultimately vindicated. (Massachusetts referred to just such provisions in authorizing same-sex marriage.) Young also demolishes attempts by gay marriage proponents to differentiate same-sex marriage and polygamy. Then she points out that proponents of same-sex marriage “have offered no substantive arguments to show that the reasoning used to assert the right to same-sex marriage could not be extended to plural marriage as well.” Young even grants that polygamy could destabilize both existing marriages, and the larger ethos of marital monogamy. Having granted the power of the slippery-slope argument, Young offers no rebuttal. Instead she reflects on the complicated options for avoiding the problem. Young considers abolishing state-sanctioned marriage altogether, for example, but dismisses this as politically unworkable.

Bush to back amendment prohibiting gay marriage

2004-02-12T16:52:00.000-05:00

Bush to back amendment prohibiting gay marriage

By Mike Allen and Alan Cooperman
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — President Bush plans to endorse a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman after a Massachusetts court decision requiring legal recognition of gay marriages in that state, key advisers said yesterday.

Bush plans to endorse language introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., that backers contend would ban gay marriage but not prevent state legislatures from allowing the kind of civil unions and same-sex-partnership arrangements that exist in Vermont and California.

Bush has moved incrementally over seven months toward embracing a gay-marriage ban, and the advisers said he will soon clarify his position with a public statement.

"We'd like to see Congress take it up, and the president will be supportive," a top Republican official said. "We would like to see both chambers act sooner rather than later."

Bush signaled the direction of his thinking in last month's State of the Union address, when he stopped just short of endorsing an amendment but said the nation "must defend the sacrament of marriage."

Musgrave's proposal, called the Federal Marriage Amendment, states: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The "Crushing of Dissent" against those seeking to preserve the institution of marriage

2004-02-12T16:35:00.000-05:00

So much for diversity -- many of those on the Left are quite happy to censor ideas they disagree with:

Maggie Gallagher writes

...A Vatican statement simply repeating a 2,000-year-old ethical tradition about marriage and sex has prompted a flurry of threats, overt and implicit, around what we used to call the Free World.

Hate-speech codes intended to prevent violence and harassment are being directed at Catholics simply for being Catholic. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has warned priests and bishops they may face charges for simply quoting or handing out the Vatican statement, according to the Irish Times. "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation," warned Aisling Reidy, director of the ICCL. Violators face six months in jail.

In 2001, the Dutch government considered charging the pope with violating its speech codes before concluding that, as head of state, he had sovereign immunity, according to press accounts. Andrew Sullivan wonders aloud why the U.S. government does not strip the Catholic Church of its charitable status. One of the top Democratic candidates, Sen. John Kerry, charged the Vatican with "crossing the line" violating the separation of church and state for expressing its views of Catholics' obligations...

Stemming the Decline

2004-02-12T16:32:00.000-05:00

Maggie Gallagher writes:

At a fascinating Health and Human Services-funded conference last week in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the National Poverty Center, we finally got the answer. And the news is good. The analysis of the National Survey of America's Families (a survey of 40,000 nationally representative families) was done by Urban Institute scholars Gregory Acs and Sandi Nelson:

Between 1997 and 2002, the proportion of children under 6 living in intact married families actually increased. So did the proportion of all children in low-income households (the bottom quarter) by close to 4 percent.

It's encouraging evidence that the apostles of despair are wrong: The decline of marriage is not inevitable. Social recovery is possible. In fact, it is under way

The less good news is that part of the shift away from single mothers was into cohabiting rather than married families. A study by Sara McLanahan and colleagues, also reported at this conference, suggests "children born to cohabiting mothers are reportedly more aggressive, more withdrawn, more anxious/depressive, and have more overall behavior problems at age 3 than children born to married parents." Part, but not all, of this difference can be explained by characteristics of the mother (including age and mental health status).

Probing the Massachusetts justices' minds

2004-02-12T16:22:00.000-05:00

Prager writes of some Questions that should have been asked in the Massachusetts Supreme Court:

The most interesting ones:

Q: Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex. Did you take this into account before rendering your judgment to redefine marriage?

A: Frankly, we couldn't care less how so-called "higher civilizations" have defined marriage. They were all wrong.

Q: How do you so easily dismiss the accumulated wisdom of all higher civilization?

A: Because liberals value feelings, not wisdom. And our feelings led us to the decision to force Massachusetts to redefine marriage.

Q: And what did you feel?

A: That what the world needs is more love.

Q: But no one has challenged anyone's right to love anyone. You didn't rule on love, you ruled on the definition of marriage.

A: Marriage is an expression of love.

Q: If love is the issue, will you also rule in favor of people marrying more than one person they love? That will surely increase love in the world.

A: We chose not to address that issue in our verdict.

Q: But if love is the criterion, where is your logical or moral consistency in denying marriage to a person who loves two people or to two people who love each other but just happen to be in the same family?

A: As we noted earlier, we operated on feelings, and our primary feeling is compassion for gays. Feelings and compassion, not logic and reason or concern for preserving higher civilization, are what make us liberals.

Q: Where is your compassion for children?

A: What do children have to do with our decision?

Q: It will now be far easier for children to be adopted by same-sex couples. This means that in the case of two married men, children will be deprived of a mother from birth and forever; and in the marriage of two women, children will be deprived of a father from birth and forever.

A: We do not believe that a child is better off with a mother and a father. All a child is needs love.

Q: So the liberal understanding is that mothers are entirely unnecessary?

A: As we said, all a child needs is love. And we have compassion for gays.

Q: Why not leave such a civilization-changing decision to the American people or at least to their elected representatives?

A: We don't trust the American people. Half of them vote Republican, vast numbers believe in the Bible, even many Democrats are not as enlightened as we are, and most Americans do not have our compassion for gays.

Q: Doesn't it smack of hubris for four people to coerce millions of people into redefining the single most important human institution?

A: When you are more enlightened and more compassionate than others, you recognize the limitations of democracy, and you make the world better in any way you can.

Q: So, because of compassion for gays, you are prepared to subvert democracy, destroy the family unit as civilization has always defined it, cause children to begin to imagine marrying a person of their own sex, and declare that mothers have nothing distinctive to give to a child that two men cannot give and vice versa?

A: Now you know how important compassion is to us liberals.

Marriage Amendment (HJ 56)

2004-02-09T17:57:00.000-05:00

Here's the link and text of the proposed Marriage Amendment (HJ 56)

"Marriage Amendment," HJ 56

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'

Turning the Question Around...

2004-02-05T17:44:00.000-05:00

A question for those of you who advocate majorly changing the definition of marriage -- what specific social arrangements or groupings would you exclude from the category of marriage?

Those advocating the homosexual position claim that, for instance, two women should be allowed to become officially "married". Implied in this is that the two women are engaging in sexual activities.

For those people seeking to "broaden" (I would say cripple and dilute) the definition of marriage, please provide principled answers to the questions below. If you cannot do so, then this is a big red flag indicating that you have not adequately thought about this issue to have an informed opinion.

-Would you exclude two people who had some emotional commitment, but were not engaging in sexual activities?

-Would you exclude groups of three or more people?

Unless you can provide a compelling argument for why marriage should be radically redefined to include homosexual unions, but NOT polygamous and non-sexual unions, then you are not merely advocating a "little" change in the definition of marriage, but instead, suggesting it be scrapped altogether and merely refer to whatever people want it to mean -- and thus become meaningless.

The Upside of the Massachusetts ruling

2004-02-05T12:28:00.000-05:00

Although not readily apparent, the recent ruling in the Massachusetts supreme court has a definite upside -- it forces a more clear-cut examination of the proposal to fundamentally alter the definition and institution of marriage.

Hadley Arkes writes today about how the Massachusetts supreme court (or at least the 'gang of four') have taken it upon themselves to attempt to radically change (and as a consequence, significantly harm) the institution of marriage.

He notes how the middle-ground of creating “civil unions” was essentially unworkable and that it seemed to be a scheme to sneak through civil unions that would be identical to marriages – differing in name only. Furthermore, in time, such an approach would eventually lead to the two being equated and any distinctions erased.

He goes on to say how the the exclusion of certain groups from a category does NOT result in the villificantion of such individuals.

I believe a good example of this would be heterosexuals... just because some heterosexual males and females are barred from becoming "married" as a polygamous group, does NOT vilify males, or females or heterosexuals.

Death of Marriage -- Marriage and Children

2004-02-05T11:56:00.000-05:00

Another key section of Kurtz's argument examines the fundamental relationship between marriage and children.

He replies to Andrew Sullivan -- a gifted rhetorician, but not particularly honest intellectually -- as demonstrated by the fact that he has openly advocated lies and deception to further a political agenda.

"...Sullivan claims that however desirable it may be to connect marriage and parenthood, the empirical reality of marriage in America is that most married couples have no children. This is a deeply misleading statistical trick. Sullivan tries to deflect criticism here by conceding that at least some cases of married couples without children at home may simply be older couples whose children are now in school. But Sullivan's statistics disguise just how profoundly marriage and child bearing are still are still connected in American culture.

Justin Katz nicely dissipates Sullivan's statistical fog. Katz shows that it is clearly the norm for married American women of child-bearing age to have children. Most people who get married are planning to have children. The fact that older couples have kids off in college does nothing to change that fact. The striking thing about Americans — and it's evident immediately on comparison with Scandinavia — is just how closely we continue to associate marriage with parenthood. Every time Andrew Sullivan makes his case that marriage and parenthood are not connected, he is harming marriage. I know this is far from Sullivan's intention (and I respect his intentions). But the harm to marriage is real nonetheless.

Deathblow to Marriage

2004-02-05T11:40:00.000-05:00

As always, Stanley Kurtz provides an excellent and insightful article on the widespread negative consequences of the proposed radical changes to the institution of marriage.

"At issue in the gay-marriage controversy is nothing less than the existence of marriage itself. This point is vehemently denied by the proponents of gay marriage, who speak endlessly of marriage's adaptability and "resilience." But if there is one thing I think I've established in my recent writing on Scandinavia, it is that marriage can die — and is in fact dying — somewhere in the world. In fact, marriage is dying in the very the same place that first recognized gay marriage.

In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to create institutions that keep them from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an institution that is necessary to the well being of children — even if that means special benefits for some, and not for others. The dependence intrinsic to human childhood is why unadulterated libertarianism can never work.

The "discrimination" inherent in the legal institution of marriage is relatively minor. Single people are "discriminated against" by the benefits granted to married couples. Those who prefer to live with multiple lovers are also "discriminated against" by the institution of marriage. So, too, are same-sex couples "discriminated against" by marriage. Each of these groups is now demanding redress from this "discrimination." Such redress will spell the end of marriage.

The difficulties and challenges of gays are special precisely because they do not derive from the "discrimination" of marriage. The real source of the challenges of gay life is the problem of sexual difference. It is terribly difficult to grow up with a different sort of sexuality than most of the world around you. Marriage does not cause this problem, and it cannot solve it.

Yet, out of understandable compassion for the sorrows and difficulties of gays, many Americans want to offer marriage as a kind of consolation or remedy for the challenges inherent in the gay situation. The increased social tolerance for gays in America is largely a good thing, as far as I'm concerned. But using marriage to accomplish a purpose for which it was not intended — and which it cannot fulfill — will not fundamentally alter the situation of gays. It will, however, spell the end of marriage, and of the protection marriage offers to vulnerable children who cannot vote or articulate their interests. The number of children potentially endangered by the collapse of marriage is far larger than the number of gays or "polyamorists." The number of single people who will never marry is substantial and growing, yet society is right to "discriminate" against these single people in ways that are relatively modest — but which sustain an institution that protects children."

Go read the whole thing. Now.

2004-02-05T08:41:00.000-05:00

President's Statement on Massachusetts' Court Ruling
Statement by the President

February 4, 2004

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

"Today's ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is deeply troubling. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

2004-02-05T01:47:00.000-05:00

Dilution of Marriage as a "Brand"

James Miller provides a useful insight when he writes about the problems with the dilution of the institution (or "brand") of marriage:

"The gay marriage debate is really a fight over whether to expand the marriage brand name. Successful brand names signal quality. Companies like brand names because they quickly convey information to consumers; for example, even though you may never have been to Northampton's McDonald's, you probably know what a dining experience there entails. "Marriage", too, is a brand name; perhaps the world's most successful. Knowing a couple is married tells you a lot about them. Marriage also seems to bring about many benefits as couples who get married tend to stay together longer and do a better job raising children. Indeed, marriage is so successful that many Americans pay a substantial tax penalty just for the privilege of legally using the marriage brand name. If you wanted to start a fast-food restaurant you would pay a fair amount for the right to call your restaurant McDonald's because of what this brand name signals. Similarly, many couples are willing to pay higher taxes for the signaling benefits of marriage.

...Allowing homosexual couples to marry would egalitarianly spread the benefits of the married brand name over more Americans. But, alas, whenever you extend a brand you risk diluting its value. Marriage is a great brand that should be both protected and promoted; unfortunately, however, these two goals may conflict.

In Slate.com, Michael Kinsley wrote that we should avoid the fight over gay marriage by privatizing marriage. Kinsley's plan, I suppose, would even allow a man to get married to his goldfish, regardless of his goldfish's gender. By allowing anyone to get married, however, Kinsley's privatization plan would destroy marriage's brand value."

2004-02-05T01:01:00.000-05:00

Some important statements on the current battle to protect the institution of marriage:

"...the policy objective is to uphold and defend the institution of marriage. It would be a dangerous folly to weaken this institution by elevating non-marital unions to the same position as marriage, or relegating the institution of marriage to the status of merely one form of household. To the extent that homosexuals or other individuals face obstacles to claims of benefits, legislative bodies may choose to address these matters. Such questions must not be addressed, however, in a way that endangers the centrality and distinctiveness of marriage to the welfare of society."

"Writing the joint dissent, Justice Robert J. Cordy says that the marriage statute, as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman, does not violate the Massachusetts Constitution because “the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children.” This case is “about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them.” This issue “is one deeply rooted in social policy” and “that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court.'"

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm373.cfm?renderforprint=1

2004-02-05T00:48:00.000-05:00

Questions or Comments? Feel free to send me email.

2004-02-04T15:37:00.000-05:00

And thus the Culture War begins...

Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

For the first time ever, I'm beginning to wish Bush were MORE Conservative.

On the upside for you Repubs, this has effectively guaranteed victory for the Republicans in November. Even though I normally vote Democrat (~75% of the time), I will not consider doing so again until the constitution has been amended to protect marriage from being rendered meaningless by some activist liberal judges.

My guess is that this will also effectively destroy the Democratic party -- Blacks, Hispanics, and the small percentage of non-liberal-religious people will now leave the Dems.