MARRIAGE AS THE PLACE TO HAVE CHILDREN; AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY: Mark Tardiff (posted by Eve)

Mark Tardiff is a Catholic priest writing from Rome.

Individual cases such as those pointed out by Mr. Miller do not invalidate the principle that Mrs. Gallagher is upholding [that 'Marriage is the place where we think it is a good idea to have children. ...Therefore, in giving marriage to unisex couples, we are saying that we think it is a great idea of unisex couples to acquire children. We are saying children do not need mothers and fathers']. If individual cases were capable of doing so, then all we have to do to show that SSM is not good would be to find a few cases where a same sex couple were irresponsible or even abusive. Does anyone doubt that such couples exist?

On a somewhat different topic, I find it ironic that Afro-Americans, whose campaign for civil rights homosexual activists appeal to as the model for what they are doing, are one of the groups most strongly opposed to SSM. I do not think it is because they begrudge to others what they have fought for. Rather, as Rev. Dr. Ray Hammond made clear in his testimony before the Senate sub-committee on the Constitution, it is because they have paid the highest price of any group for the social chaos resulting from fatherless children. Hence they are more sensitive to the threat posed by SSM to the institution of marriage.
posted by maggie at 4:39 PM | link 0 comments

THE USA TODAY POLL: Maggie Gallagher

IN other words, I could equally describe this poll as saying 88 percent think changing the definition of marriage to permit same-sex marriage will either harm society or have no effect. Just 10 percent believe it "might" have benefits for society.
posted by maggie at 11:22 AM | link 0 comments

WAS ANDREW RIGHT? Maggie Gallagher

Andrew Sullivan has posted a correction to his WSJ piece on his website. As someone who writes a lot myself and sometimes makes mistakes I am sure it was an innocent error. On the other hand, I finally tracked down a paper copy (which contains more detailed information) of the USA Today story on October 7 reporting the poll results and they are not (in my opinion) really very good for SSM advocates.

Certainly the next generation is the weak link on this marriage idea, take as much comfort as you can from that.

According to the USA Today poll, 32 percent of young people think gay marriage will change society for the worse, 24 percent think it will change society for the better, and 43 percent think it will have no effect--the latter being a rather misguided opnion that both Andrew and I would reject I imagine. Note than even in this group more young people see harm than benefits.

Among those age 30-49, on the other hand, 11 percent think that it will make society better and 42 percent think it will make society worse. In other words, among those who care about this issue (as opposed to thinking it doesn't matter) the margin is 4 to 1 against gay marriage.

When asked, "Do you think gay or lesbian couples should--or should not--be allowed all the same legal rights as married couples in every state, or does it not matter to you?" Young people were more favorable, but only 45 percent actually agreed (breakdowns below).

Bottom line: The normal way of reading a poll like this would be to note that by an almost 5 to 1 margin (see below), Americans overall are more likely to say same-sex marriage will hurt society rather than benefit it. And only 32 percent of all Americans support giving gay couples the legal rights of marriage.

Lumping people who don't care with people who do care to create an "even split" on gay marriage is sort of odd--certainly not usual in reporting polls. Certainly the large group of Americans who seem to think the definition of marriage hardly matters is a problem both for advocates and opponents of SSM.

Not to mention for our culture of marriage.

October 7, 2003, USA Today, at p. 21A.

"Do you think that allowing two people of the same sex to legally marry will change society for the better, have no effect or change society for the worse?"

Age 18-29
Better: 24%
No Effect: 43%
Worse: 32%

Age 30-49
Better: 11%
No Effect: 42%
Worse: 46%

Age 50-64
Better: 5%
No Effect: 42%
Worse: 52%

Age 65+
Better: 2%
No Effect: 26%
Worse: 64%

All Ages
Better: 10%
No Effect: 40%
Worse: 48%

"Do you think gay or lesbian couples should--or should not--be allowed all the same legal rights as married couples in every state, or does it not matter to you?"

Age 18-29
Should be allowed: 45%
Not be allowed: 22%
Doesn't Matter: 32%

Age 30-49
Should be allowed: 30%
Not be allowed: 35%
Doesn't matter: 35%

Age 50-64
Should be allowed: 31%
Not be allowed: 40%
Doesn't matter: 29%

Age 65+
Should be allowed: 24%
Not be allowed: 41%
Doesn't matter: 31%

All Ages
Should be allowed: 32%
Not be allowed: 35%
Doesn't matter: 32%

posted by maggie at 11:15 AM | link 0 comments

RESPONSE TO FRUM AND SULLIVAN: Mike Pignatello

[Mike is a 28-year-old gay marketing consultant.]

Those arguing against same-sex marriage equality should re-examine what they defend: an idea of marriage that doesn't match reality. Some heterosexuals choose marriage for the wrong reasons, others have kids knowing they'll be raised in broken homes, and others just want out. As divorce rates prove, the institution of marriage, while important, has a poor track record. By contrast, to argue that gay partnerships or other "civil pacts" in the U.S. are going to result in more broken homes is mere speculation, as is the assumption that short-lived civil pacts in countries like Canada will always include children and therefore harm them. Gay Americans are simply seeking choice in marriage matters. We want the freedom to choose deeper, legal commitments, just as heterosexuals have the freedom make sensible and foolish choices in their own relationships. To deny gays this right because it's "complicated" is an incredibly weak argument. Marriage for heterosexuals is complicated. So what? Mr. Frum should consider the possibility that society can promote more intact homes by giving people more relationship options, not fewer. Let's make formal marriage the ultimate choice for straight and gay Americans who are mature and committed, and esepcially for those who are stable enough to raise children. Anything else just doesn't deserve to be called "marriage."
posted by maggie at 5:15 AM | link 0 comments

DAVID FRUM REPLIES TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: "Let's start with a basic premise: The gay marriage debate is perceived by many as a debate about gays. It is not. It is a debate about marriage." more
posted by maggie at 5:13 AM | link 0 comments

ANDREW SULLIVAN: THE STATE OF OUR UNIONS (posted by Eve): "So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. ..." more
posted by maggie at 5:11 AM | link 0 comments

WHAT DO WE DO WITH GAYS? Maggie Gallagher

A friend wrote to ask me this question. This was my answer:

"Does it ever strike you that this question: What should I do with gay people? Is deeply condescending and offensive?

I don't think I should do anything with gay people, except treat you with the dignity of a) a child of God b) a fellow citizen c) a potential friend and neighbor, brother etc. d) sometimes an ally and sometimes an opponent on things about which we agree or disagree.

I am surrounded by people who do not share my view of sexual ethics. I don't "do" anything with them either, except sometimes share my views and sometime keep my big mouth shut."

If you take Andrew's sentences and substitute "single person" for "gay citizens" you will see what I mean.








posted by maggie at 12:28 PM | link 0 comments

IS ANDREW RIGHT? PART 2: Maggie Gallagher

The argument from despair was also the implicit argument made on every single sexually and sociall conservative issue since the 1970s. Once the "taboos" fall, there is no case for traditional Christian or Jewish sexual ethics and the young will defect en masse. Certainly, the right to have sex however you want, and get rid of any inconvenient babies your bodies produce, is no doubt rather powerfully attractive.

But rather than fading away, we are seeing the next generation is actually growing more traditional on almost every sexual matter, except gay issues. Young people today are 20 points more opposed to divorce than they were 20 years ago, more prolife, more likely to be virgins, etc. Women are more likely to decide to stay home with their kids than they were 20 years ago, men and women express a greater commitment to marital permanence than they did 20 years ago. All the trends that we were told were irreversibly part of "modern life" are beginning to mov in the opposite of their predicted direction. The myth inevitability of the culturally liberal elite's idea of "social progress" is already exploding, for those who care to look.

That we are losing the next generation on the gay marriage issue is certainly true. That this is ineivtable and irreversible is not.


posted by maggie at 12:24 PM | link 0 comments

WAS ANDREW RIGHT? Maggie v. Mark

Mark, it may seem a subtle point to you. But what Andrew actually said is "A poll
this week for USA Today found that 67 percent of the 18-29 age group believe that gay marriage would benefit society."

That is flatly untrue. What the poll actually says is "67 percent of those ages 18 to 29 and 53 percent of those ages 30 to 49 say gay unions would have no harmful effect or might make society better." The majority in each of those demographic chunks believe gay marriage has no harmful effect, not that it has benefits.

This is part of Andrew's campaign to use what he might call the myth of progress and what I would call the argument from despair. You guys are just dinosaurs. I have won the young people. Roll over and give up folks cause the future belongs to me!

This is also the main argument of the "family diversity" crowd in general. Sure the traditional understanding of marriage as the key institution responsible for creating the future generation may have advantages. But the reality is we live in a different society and (this is the article of faith), it is impossible for anyone to change the social reality that marriage is finished. So we should just get over it and get on with the business of remaking our laws and policies (as the Business Week article suggests) so that marriage is no longer central but one of many equally valid and legitimate family arrangements. Let us all be "servile before fact" and therefore infiinitely pliable to what those who are busy re-imagining and re-creating our social order want.

In my view there has been no serious effort to take the marriage case to the next generation at all and a rather relentless propoganda campaign on behalf of gay marriage both in high schools and colleges.

This fight is not yet seriously engaged and Andrew desperately wants to declare it over.
posted by maggie at 12:02 PM | link 0 comments

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY MARRIAGE IS ABOUT "TAKING CARE OF ANOTHER PERSON"?: GABRIEL ROSENBERG: (posted by Eve)

Maggie, you ask me two questions based on my theory of marriage as establishing a "taking care" of relationship. Why do we then not allow family members to marry? Why do we allow people to marry only one person?

First of all, we don't need to allow family members to marry, as those members are already family. They are already related and the law and society both recognize that relationship.

Not only is there no need for family members to marry, we don't want it to happen either. One societal benefit of marriage is that it brings two different families together, further uniting us as a society. More importantly, though, allowing family members to marry would harm all existing familial relationships. We simply could not develop the same familial bonds if family members were also potential mates.

The benefits of marriage stem from having a person to care for and the same person to care for you. So there is no need for allowing multiple marriages, and, furthermore, it would be a bad idea. You can't care for two people the same way you care for one, and your responsibility to care for another is different if you share that responsibility with another.

Yes, a parent can care for multiple children and share that responsibility with the other parent, but the parental relationship is different from the marital relationship. One key difference is the latter is an adult relationship.

Although that difference is relevant to this issue, I instead want to focus on another difference. Parents have the obligation to care for their children, and children have the duty to obey their parents. The marital relationship in our society, though, is one of mutual responsibilities and equality. Polygamy can only survive in a culture where a husband has the obligation to care for his wives, and a wife has the duty to obey her husband. I should emphasize also that even the thought that a spouse might someday take on another marriage harms all marriages in much the same way that the threat of divorce does. If the marriage is to succeed, neither spouse can be looking for new marriages.
posted by maggie at 4:07 PM | link 0 comments

"SAY GOODBYE TO THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY"? (posted by Eve)

Business Week's cover story, "Unmarried America," gives us another go-round of the argument from despair: Marriage is dying and there's nothing you can do about it. Best to replace it with maternity leave and a "social safety net," the way the Europeans do....

Excerpts:

"Thirty years ago, a single woman like Herskowitz would have been considered
an aberration. An old maid. Today, she's so typical that the highest IQs in
Hollywood and on Wall Street and Madison Avenue are fixated on dreaming up
products for the swelling ranks of unattached urbanites just like her. Add
to these monied romantics a growing number of gay couples such as Luke
Schemmel and Jonathan Shapiro, who are raising two adopted kids; divorced
parents such as Jason Lauer and Terresa Lauer, who share custody of their
7-year-old son; single parents like Mark Cunha, a widower who is raising a
son and daughter alone; and young men like Vincent Ciaccio, who broke his
Italian mother's heart when he got a vasectomy three years ago at the age of
23 because he didn't want to get tied down. Along with the growing numbers
of cohabitants and elderly unmarrieds, these wildly divergent types are the
force behind a huge demographic shift taking place in this country: We're on
the verge of becoming -- at least in the legal sense -- a nation of
singletons. ...

"Certainly, there are scores of reasons to encourage marriage. Social
research suggests that it is one of the republic's great stabilizers. Living
with two happily married parents is the best shot a kid has for a successful
launch in life. Marriage attaches fathers to children and protects
adolescents from the scourges of addiction, suicide, teen pregnancy, and
crime. Matrimony also offers families a layer of economic protection in an
era when demands for individual competence and educational achievement have
never been greater; when even members of the middle-class face slippery job
security, diminishing benefits, and bidding wars for houses in the
ever-dwindling number of good school districts.

"But just because matrimony is good for society doesn't mean that outmoded
social benefits are -- especially when so many kids are not living in the
kinds of traditional households that current social policies favor. As more
and more companies begin to loosen the connection between benefits and
marriage -- and partners who act like they are married are treated as if
they are -- it's likely that there may be even higher rates of cohabitation
and even lower rates of marriage, as has already happened in Europe. The
difference, though, is that European countries have stronger social safety
nets in the form of long, subsidized maternity leave policies; good
part-time jobs for mothers; and tight-knit extended families, who help care
for children born to single parents."
posted by maggie at 3:59 PM | link 0 comments

POLLS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: FROM MARK MILLER: (posted by Eve)

Maggie, you make an interesting point about Andrew Sullivan's comments on the USA Today poll. First, he did not misquote the poll. The adding of the two categories does represent those who are not opposed to gay marriage.

But your message is clear and accurate--in order to gain support against gay marriage, you need to persuade the next generation that it would further erode a culture of marriage.

Yet your explanation that the poll results is affected by mainstream media being too liberal is simply false. If the media had an effect on gay-rights, then why is the majority of all Americans against any gay-rights? Also, why does the liberal bias of the media mainstream only affect younger people?

Finally and most importantly, most of the 'intelligent' support of same-sex
marriage is based on 'conservative' ideology. Dale Carpenter, Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan, and Norah Vincent are all considered 'conservatives'. Are they not?
posted by maggie at 3:41 PM | link 0 comments

"MARRIAGE IS THE PLACE WHERE WE THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE CHILDREN": A RESPONSE FROM MARK MILLER: (posted by Eve, not Maggie)

[Maggie wrote, "Marriage is the place where we think it is a good idea to have children. ...Therefore, in giving marriage to unisex couples, we are saying that we think it is a great idea of unisex couples to acquire children. We are saying children do not need mothers and fathers.

"None of that is true with any male-female union."

Mark replies:]

I actually do agree that it is not possible to approve of same-sex marriage and disapprove of same-sex parenting, legally speaking.

But your argument fails when you attempt to justify laws preventing any legal acceptance of gay relationships by saying 'marriage is the place where we think it is a good idea to have children'. If that is what you believe then you must believe that the following marriages 'are a good place to have children':
- incarcerated persons
- persons knowing each other less than 48 hours
- atheists

Are those cases where you think 'it is a good idea to have children' ? Of course not. As a conservative, I'm sure you believe as I do that most social and legal institutions should be available to all citizens but with that comes a 'personal responsibility'.

Having and raising children is ONE of the purposes of marriage. But once you define that as THE purpose, then you have a problem unless you are willing to say that the ONLY important thing about parenthood is having two parents of the opposite sex.
posted by maggie at 3:37 PM | link 0 comments

MARRIAGEDEBATE.COM's NEW EDITOR: Maggie Gallagher

Dear friends and dearer opponents: I think in just a few months, we have turned marriagedebate.com into the most interesting conversation on same-sex marriage around. But you may have noticed the pace of the debate has fallen off, entirely a reflection of your gentle editor's insane decision to not only start a new webzine but found a new think-tank, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (imapp.org).

Fortunately, an extremely brilliant and talented young writer, familiar to we happy few at MarriageDebate.com, has agreed to step into the breach. Eve Tushnet will be taking over the day-to-day editing responsibilities, keeping the flow going, introducing new ideas, new questions, new voices, as of tomorrow. I will remain editor-in-chief and continue to blog. I wouldn't miss the actual debating for the world.

So stay tuned for a new rush of intellectual energy at MarriageDebate.com.

Warmly,

Maggie


posted by maggie at 11:08 AM | link 0 comments

THE UNBEATABLE INFERTILITY ARGUMENT: Maggie Gallagher

Thanks Gabriel for your post. I think it allows us to "achieve disagreement" at last. Simply put I do not think, without doing violence to marriage in another way, that it is possible to approve of same-sex marriage and disapprove of same-sex parenting. Comments anyone?

Secondly, if baby-making is underinclusive, as the lawyers say, in marriage, "taking care of another person," is even more so. Many of the people we are most called upon to take care of, we are actually forbidden to marry i.e. other family members. And why (to bring up Eve's question) just one other person? If the purpose of marriage is to take care of another surely it is better, morally and socially, to take care of more than one person rather than just one person?


posted by maggie at 7:20 AM | link 0 comments