I agree that the author’s point about divorce is entirely legitimate.
Reality is, though, it is a ridiculous jump in logic to call anal penetration by a penis marriage... just because John and Susy got divorced.
Now, the author doesn’t say that. He sounds like a traditional marriage guy, but he argues that the gay marriage folks have a point when they showcase the sorry state of divorce. He then should make a stronger case that there is no legitimacy for so-called “gay marriage” no matter what the traditional marriage divorce rate.
I didn't understand it that way. I understood him to be arguing that "gay" marriage is beside the point. Real marriage is the point: exclusive, permanent, and life-giving marriage. Real marriage didn't fall apart because of a small percentage of nutty people doing sick things with each other. Real marriage fell apart because an absolute majority of people don't want it.
In my opinion, "the right," whatever that includes, can't fundamentally affect the direction of the country, because they don't want to.
Was it you, frapster, in a post above, who said "gelatinous mass of contradiction"? Raucous round of applause! People recognize the social damage caused by easy divorce, and they certainly don't like it when their spouse up and dumps them ... but they don't want the law changed, because they want the option open. People recognize the social pathologies of fatherless "families," but they like free sex outside marriage.
People don't want an "anything goes" society, but they don't want a "theocracy" - I'm quoting some poster on some thread. That is, they don't want "anything goes," but they want everything to go that they, personally, want, while somehow precluding the things they don't want ... yet. When they decide they do want it, then anyone who disapproves is a "theocrat."
I will close this rant with some wise words from Sarah Palin: "Build the America you want in your home ... and keep looking up." (not claiming the quote is exact)
Bingo. This reads like the text of a sermon in which he introduced a "wedge issue" to wake up the sleepers in the pews; but his real point is about marriage.
I agree that marriage has fallen into complete disrepair in our culture. But having researched the laws surrounding it, I find that the "liberation" movements of the 60s onward, where most of the prior expectations of marriage were carried up to the Supreme Court where they were liberalized wholesale, had a lot to do with destroying most social supports for marriage. The high court overwhelmingly upheld the "rights" of the unmarriued to be treated identically to the married in terms of access to birth control, and marriage-indifference in childbearing and rearing, employment in areas affecting children, lodging and housing. As these supports were cut away, couples who are young or who need some time to adjust into full marital responsibility were cut adrift. As well, palimony and no-fault were death blows to the institution, especially the idea that adultery or abandonment would carry no legal for financial consequences. With the best intentions, illegitimacy lost its stigma; however, it also lost any social approbrium and can no longer be used as a negative consequence to deny employment. And while no-fault divorces are easier to obtain, the threat of divorce bankrupting one's future has also put a damper on getting married in the first place.
As a result of this radically liberal agenda, marriage has become a situation of Russian roulette.