Steve Waldman, over at BeliefNet, wrote last week that: “The most dramatic step would be for gay marriage activists to endorse the concept of Covenant Marriage.”

I asked Glenn T. Stanton, director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family what he thought:

In many ways, Steven’s piece is similar to the Blankenhorn/Rauch NYT piece, but his seeks a compromise in a more ham-handed way. First, he woefully misunderstands same-sex marriage opponents' fundamental concerns about same-sex marriage. The concern is not the slippery-slope of where same-sex marriage could lead, but same-sex marriage itself. It deconstructs our understanding of marriage as an institution that solves the paradox of humanity: that we exist in two, male and female, and both need each other . . . and society needs them to need each other. It has no need of same-sex couplings. And since when did we shift the discussion from ideals to compromise? When the other side can achieve any of their goals sans judicial fiat, then maybe they will have a position to contribute anything to compromise.

Labels: covenant marriage, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 5:17 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

...But while it's easy to hate on divorce, let's not forget that it's a wonderful institution that not too long ago Americans were fighting to make more easily accessible. It gets people out of abusive (both emotionally and physically) relationships and is often a sign of people changing or growing further apart. For some people who marry young it's part of emotionally maturing.

And, most importantly, no-fault divorce is part of living in a free society where both men and women are able to choose how they want to live. Because no matter how much we might think it's a great idea to force people to stay in a marriage they don't want to be in, they are the ones who should ultimately make that decision, not the government.

Covenant marriage appears at first glance like a solution in search of a problem. If both people in a couple really, really wanted to make their marriage difficult to get out of, they'd simply impose on themselves the rules that come with covenant marriage.

A couple in a regular marriage can say, "Neither of us is going to jail, no one committed adultery, and neither of us is physically abusing the other. So, even though we'd very much like to divorce, we're not going to." ...

Same-sex marriage is about promoting sexual autonomy and letting people decide for themselves how they want to live their lives, not about sending same-sex couples back to the 1950's where divorce was a dirty word.

Covenant marriage is the ideological opposite of what we should be doing, which is expanding the options people have so that they can choose the relationship rights and recognitions they need to protect the families they already have.

Labels: autonomy, covenant marriage, culture, divorce, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 6:17 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

Remember the bogus "compromise" on marriage equality recently proposed by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch in their NYT op-ed "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage"? You know the one that had equality supporters doing all the giving up to appease equality opponents by creating separate-and-unequal federal civil unions with additional faith-based protections for religious conservatives (as if their rights weren't already protected). ...

That's a non-starter, as I blogged back in February, since the Religious Right has no interest in compromise.

I think a proposal floated by Steven Waldman, editor in chief of Beliefnet, holds much more promise if you want to talk about compromise. He suggests that gays and lesbians should propose tightening divorce laws, bundled with the call for marriage equality, specifically by supporting the idea of covenant marriage (something David Blankenhorn actually supports as well). It's a more intellectually feasible way of revealing those who profess their goal is to "protect" marriage versus the homophobes.

Labels: covenant marriage, culture, gay marriage

posted by Eve at 6:10 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT

In a brief post the other day, I made a modest proposal: gay activists should offer a deal to opponents of gay marriage: if you support gay marriage, we'll support efforts to reduce the divorce rate.

I wanted to unpack this idea a bit. First, some opponents of same sex marriage say their big fear is the slippery slope toward a weakening of the institution of marriage. Gay marriage would lead to polygamy etc. Gays have correctly pointed out that many other factors are far more likely to hurt marriage than same sex unions. Indeed, writers like Andrew Sullivan have persuasively argued that this drive for same sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution of marriage, something that ought to be encouraged, not discouraged.

So, my idea challenges gay activists: if it's true that you revere the institution of marriage, put your energy and clout toward helping to strengthen it in a variety of ways (more on the particulars below).

Then, it challenges anti-gay marriage forces: if you are truly concerned mostly about the future of marriage, here's a way you can insure that gay marriage will actually strengthen not harm that institution.

Of course what this potential offer would also do is smoke out those gay marriage opponents who have used the sanctity of marriage argument as an excuse for their real motivation, which is to deny gays equal status.

What could actually strengthen the institution of marriage? Below the fold I list several policy ideas but symbolically the most dramatic step would be for gay marriage activist to endorse the concept of Covenant Marriage. This is an idea promoted by religious conservatives and usually mocked by folks on the left. The idea was to give couples a choice between two types of marriage licenses, regular and a "Covenant Marriage." Those who chose the latter would commit to premarital counseling, emphasizing the seriousness of the institution and agreeing to get marital counseling when troubles arise." Can you imagine if there was a voluntary movement of gays to encourage the idea and indeed for some of them to choose Covenant Marriage for themselves?

Here are some other examples of ideas to preserve marriage included in a book by religious conservatives Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson. Yes, that's the same Tony Perkins who runs the Family Research Council and opposes gay marriage -- but before gay activists reject anything out of his mouth on those grounds consider some of these ideas with open mind. If you didn't know who was proposing them, wouldn't you support these ideas?

Labels: covenant marriage, divorce, gay marriage, waiting periods

posted by Eve at 6:05 AM EMAIL SHARE PRINT