SSM AND DIVORCE: Noah Millman replies to Jennifer Roback Morse and Andrew Sullivan

I was making this argument at least five years ago. One of the many reasons I can't get on the FMA train (along with the fact that this is an inappropriate subject for the Constitution) is precisely that I think the fight to prohibit the redefinition of marriage as a unisex institution is deeply hypocritical. The push for same-sex marriage is not the cause of the decline of the marriage culture in America; it is a symptom. Why are so many focused on attacking the symptom while largely ignoring the cause? Because the symptom--same-sex marriage--is the subject of advocacy by an often-despised minority, while the cause--no-fault divorce--is something that affects the majority of the citizenry (given the prevalence of divorce in our society, I'd bet a majority of the citizenry falls into one of the following categories: divorced, parent of a divorcee, or child of a divorcee). ...

Saying there's a beam in our own eye doesn't mean the mote doesn't exist. Same-sex marriage would be a mistake. But it's not a mistake we're likely to make freely. The only states that have even talked about redefining marriage this way have been forced to do so by the courts. The solution to that problem is to punish the courts--systematically, by reducing their power, and not in an ad-hoc fashion by exempting this or that law from review or amending the Constitution every time they rule in a way the people dislike. ...

People have talked about [our] culture as "serial monogamy"--a version of polygamy where you can marry multiple times, but not simultaneously--and like polygamy but from the opposite direction, serial monogamy has harmed women and had profoundly damaging consequences for the social structure that underpins a healthy, democratic society.

We have got to restore the distinction in law between annulment and divorce. I'd be favorable to a liberal annulment law--i.e., relatively easy dissolution of marriage when there are no children. But this should not be an option once children are involved. Then, the only option should be divorce, and divorce should only be possible upon a finding of fault--adultery, cruelty, abandonment, something substantive that would have to be demonstrated in court. And society--and maybe even government; I'm open to the idea--should do whatever it can to promote reconciliation within marriage. ...

Finally, an open question to Andrew Sullivan: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. ...

So here's my question: are you *predicting* that an attack on no-fault divorce is coming ("divorce is next" is how you title this item) and hence warning straights, in effect, "first they came for the gays"? Or are you mocking the Christian Right for *ignoring* divorce and focusing only on sins their flocks would not commit ("Why not combine . . . amendments 'defending' marriage with bands on no-fault divorce? Well, you know the answer.")? Are you attacking your opponents for *not* really caring about marriage, or warning us that they *do* really care? And what do you think we *should* do about divorce? Are you happy that no-fault divorce exists, or unhappy? Is freedom to exit marriage at will something important to how you understand marriage, or something that undermines that understanding? What, finally, does marriage *mean* to you, Mr. Sullivan, since you want it so badly. Just a basket of goodies? Or social approval of your relationship? You have devoted much of your public life to advocacy to redefine marriage to encompass your relationship with a hypothetical man who asks you to marry him. In the final analysis, and honestly, *why*?

more

posted by Eve at 8:19 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home