REPLY TO ELIZABETH MARQUARDT: Barry Deutsch

...There's a genuine pattern here, I think. Elizabeth and others would like to use the government's powers to make it more likely that children will be raised by their own, married, biological parents. However, there's a general consensus - even, I think, within the marriage movement - that some ways of doing this (category A) are unreasonable and shouldn't be pursued. No one at the Institute for American Values (Elizabeth's employer) is suggesting that we bring back coverture or outlaw divorce, for example.

So what differentiates category A from category B? The general principle seems to be that although the government should encourage childrearing by married bio-parents, in the name of the common good, it shouldn't do so at the expense of removing civil rights or endorsing outright discrimination.

Instead, the government is allowed to use the methods in category B: the government can cajole, the government can persuade, the government can educate.

Here's what puzzles me: I'm sure that Elizabeth would agree that the government should be doing a lot to encourage a society in which more children are raised by married bio-parents. I'm sure that she would also agree that some means of doing this are acceptable, and some are not. I suspect that if she made a list of acceptable and unacceptable methods, it might look pretty similar to my two lists above.

It seems obvious to me that refusing to recognize same-sex marriage belongs in category A, similar to refusing to recognize divorce, refusing to recognize interracial marriage, and so forth. But Elizabeth must think it belongs in category B, similar to providing tax breaks and marriage education programs. And I genuinely don't understand why.

more

posted by Eve at 4:09 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home