Skip to comments.The Stakes: Why we need marriage.
Posted on 07/14/2003 8:48:07 AM PDT by presidio9
Ramesh Ponnuru (writing in the July 28, 2003 issue of National Review) is right about several things: We are poised to lose the gay-marriage battle badly. Arguments about a slippery slope to polygamy are not untrue, but ineffectual, signs of a profound weakness in our culture of marriage. Polygamy is not worse than gay marriage, it is better. At least polygamy, for all its ugly defects, is an attempt to secure stable mother-father families for children.
What is missing from this and many other analyses on this issue is a declaration of the stakes. Gay marriage is not some sideline issue, it is the marriage debate. Losing it (as John O'Sullivan makes abundantly clear) means losing marriage as a social institution, a shared public norm. Marriage will become (as it is in Sweden) a religious rite, with little public or social significance. As a legal institution, marriage will lose its coherence. By embracing gay marriage the legal establishment will have declared that the public purposes of marriage no longer include anything to do with making babies, or giving children mothers and fathers. Legitimating same-sex marriage amounts to an official declaration that, as Evan Wolfson put it in a debate with me in a just-released book Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate: "What counts is not family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household." Family structure does not count. Marriage in this view is merely expressive personal conduct, a declaration of love between two adults. As such there is no reason for the state to be involved in preferring marriage as a family form.
The question is not whether this is a battle we can win, but whether it is a battle we can afford to lose.
The fantasy of certain (not all) libertarians is that we can privatize marriage and the result will be a utopia of religiously created social order. But if marriage is just a religious rite, then it cannot also be a key social institution in a secular, pluralist nation. We do not depend on faith communities to ensure the education of children or the maintenance of private property because we understand that society needs educated citizens and a stable realm of property in order to prosper. The question is: Do we also need marriage?
The answer to this question is, I think, abundantly clear from 40 years of experimentation both here and in Europe. The consequences of our current retreat from marriage is not a flourishing libertarian social order, but a gigantic expansion of state power and a vast increase in social disorder and human suffering. The results of the marriage retreat are not merely personal or religious. When men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems. Even Medicare spending is inflated, as elderly singles spend more of their years in nursing homes.
The conservative project of limited government depends on recovering marriage as the normal, usual, and generally reliable way to raise children. The good news is that a marriage recovery appears to be on its way: Rates of divorce have dropped, illegitimacy is leveling off, marital fertility is on the rise, adult commitment to marital permanence is increasing, and the next generation's dislike of divorce is rising; the consensus that children do better when parents get and stay married is now broad, if shallow.
The bad news is that gay marriage will gut this marriage movement, and reverse these gains. Marriage will no longer be a carrier of the message that children need mothers and fathers. Instead the law will legitimate the principle of family diversity: that adults get to form the families they choose and children will resiliently adjust. Or not, but who cares? If the law embraces this message, government will become its carrier and promoter. School textbooks, teen-pregnancy programs, and abstinence education (to mention just a few venues) will all be forced to carry this new unisex marriage vision. Religious people and social conservatives (not to mention marriage advocates in general) unwilling to champion this message, will retreat from the public square. Will a society that is unwilling to abandon unilateral divorce legally enforce Catholic marriage contracts, as John O'Sullivan suggests? Dream on. A nascent and promising movement for social recovery will be strangled at birth.
What will happen to American civilization then? Marriage is a universal human institution. We do not know of any culture that has survived without a reasonably functional marriage system. Perhaps stray reproduction by single moms plus immigration can sustain America over the long haul. A look at Europe, however, does not make one sanguine. The attempt to substitute the state for the family leads not only to gargantuan government, but to miniscule families: If marriage and children are just one of many private lifestyle choices, people stop getting married and they stop having children in numbers large enough to replace the population. (One child is enough to make you a mother. When marriage is unreliable, just how foolhardy do you expect women to be?). The U.N. is now issuing urgent warnings about European depopulation.
The future belongs to people who do the hard things necessary to reproduce not only themselves, but their civilization. Marriage is not an option, it is a precondition for social survival. Not everyone lives up to the marriage ideal in this or any civilization. But when a society abandons the marriage idea altogether as a shared public norm, do not expect private individuals to be able to sustain marriage.
Winning the gay-marriage debate may be hard, but to those of us who witnessed the fall of Communism, despair is inexcusable and irresponsible. Losing this battle means losing the idea that children need mothers and fathers. It means losing the marriage debate. It means losing limited government. It means losing American civilization. It means losing, period.
|How about the new highway named for Clinton in his home stste of Arkansas? It's a little crooked, and has a long yellow streak down the center. Be careful if you drive on it, it's a little slick.
Manufacturers announced today that they will be stocking America's shelves this week with "Clinton Soup, to honor one of the nation's most distingushed men". It consists primariy of a weenie in hot water.
|Your donations keep us laughing at liberals|
That battle was lost a long, long time ago--when you allowed the left to UNDERMINE the justifications for government sponsored marriage, by extending those justifications to gays as well.
Adoption is a big one.
The government was glad to extend that one, because with fewer orphans to worry about, the politicians can spend our money on things dearer to the hearts of politicians and their friends.
Polygamy . . . for all its ugly defects . . . .
(Quick glance upward at who wrote this article: a woman. I should have known.)
There is absolutely no defensible reason for giving tax and societal benefits to people because they have feelings for each other, or even because they bring each other to orgasm.
That is arbitrary discrimination against singles.
Either give the breaks to everyone OR come up with a good reason for why a single should pay more tax than persons A&B because they are copulating.
Sheesh.....give tax breaks to prostitutes. They do the same.
The entire problem is that the government has stuck it's nose into marriage in the first place.
The entire legal concept should be abolished.
Marriage is a religious matter, period.
All questions of property ownership, child support and other liabilities can be handled by slight modifications to business partnership laws. In fact, I see no reason why a family should not be able to incorporate instead of being a partnership.
It's not that the single should pay more; the tax credits are given to parents with the implied contract that if two married people had children, they would raise those children in a responsible manner, and that those children would become responsible citizens, and eventually contributing to the good of our society. That's the defensible reason for extending tax breaks for marriages and children.
But if you didn't have married families having children, how would you then further your society? By paying prostitutes--who will then raise responsible citizens? The government? Do we really want that?
I can see giving tax and other breaks to natural families for creating and rearing children...even for the potential to do so.
I can't see giving tax and other breaks to 2 people just because they love each other and/or copulate on occasion.
Otherwise, give the same breaks to singles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.