September 28, 2010

Marriage & Family

The Marriage Game, as Predicted

Justin Katz

A recent editorial in National Review concerning same-sex marriage is a good summary of arguments that traditionalists, like me, have been making for nearly a decade now:

If it is true, as we are constantly told, that American law will soon redefine marriage to accommodate same-sex partnerships, the proximate cause for this development will not be that public opinion favors it, although it appears to be moving in that direction. It will be that the most influential Americans, particularly those in law and the media, have been coming increasingly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as irrational at best and bigoted at worst. They therefore dismiss expressions of that opposition, even when voiced by a majority in a progressive state, as illegitimate. Judges who believe that same-sex marriage is obviously just and right can easily find ways to read their views into constitutions, to the applause of the like-minded.

The emerging elite consensus in favor of same-sex marriage has an element of self-delusion about it. It denies that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these bland assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: The government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are robust. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change both dramatic and extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus.

There was a notable shift, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision, when advocates for same-sex marriage ceased to try to conduct an intellectual discussion, as Andrew Sullivan had most notably been doing for many years prior, and simply ceased to respond seriously to objections. The entire movement, right up to the judges who have answered the call for activism, has proceeded with large blinders to the possibility that those who disagree, first, might have a point, and second, have a right to shape the relevant law in their system of supposed self government.

The practice continues, even as the obvious next steps emerge before our very eyes:

TLC, the network responsible for behemoth family exposes like "Kate Plus 8" and "19 Kids and Counting," is turning its reality TV attention to another kind of domestic abundance: polygamy. "Sister Wives," premiering at 10 p.m. today, follows a fundamentalist Mormon family composed of one daddy, three mommies and 13 children living under one roof.

"It just felt like our story needed to be told," said Kody, the affable patriarch who works in advertising and lives with his family in Lehi, Utah. "There's a lot of stereotypes out there that are actually perpetuated by the press. I wanted to make sure the world understood that we're polygamists, but we're not the polygamists that you think you know."

1:41 PM
Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Speaking of delusional and entitled, how about NOM trying to convince us they are above R.I. campaign finance laws?
I don't blame Robitaille for playing this card (pulling conservative votes away from Caprio is good strategy for him), but do family values include flouting campaign finance laws?

Posted by: rhody at September 28, 2010 2:14 PM

It will be interesting to see what happens when the census comes out in 2020 and we will be counting these marriages. I am sure you saw that the statistics for marriages are down this year due to the economy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_on_bi_ge/us_census_recession_s_impact

Posted by: Swazool at September 28, 2010 3:52 PM

It will be interesting to see what happens when the census comes out in 2020 and we will be counting these marriages.

Well, if you have 3 husbands and 3 wives then you have 3 marriages. (3+3)/2, right? But if you have 1 husband and 3 wives, then you must have 2 marriages (1+3)/2.

No, wait.

13 kids. Damn, that's one hardworking FLDS guy to support that many. However, you may want to read Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven for a portrait of polygamy that is considerably less flattering than the TLC presentation is likely to be.

Posted by: chuckR at September 28, 2010 5:16 PM

I love how gay marriage jumps to poligamy and then to "I want to marry my dog" comes next.

Posted by: Swazool at September 28, 2010 6:53 PM

The only reason that the government is involved in the definition of "marriage" is that various subsidies, handouts and mandates are based on the word.

If we took government meddling out of peoples' personal lives, the meaning of the word would be set by social forces, not political ones. And we would all be better off.

And so far, the vast majority of society is opposed to honoring homosexual unions with the term "marriage".

Posted by: BobN at September 28, 2010 7:19 PM

That majority may still exist, but it's not nearly as large as at used to be. As younger people (even many younger conservatives) realize gays are nothing to fear, that majority will shrivel and die. What we're seeing is the last desperate rear guard action, like we saw against slavery, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws (and even blacks may be reconsidering homophobia given what's happening with that charlatan of the cloth in Atlanta - made a lot of $ off homophobia while he was exploiting young boys).

Posted by: rhody at September 28, 2010 9:11 PM

Posted by Swazool

"I love how gay marriage jumps to poligamy and then to "I want to marry my dog" comes next."

Well, if the only standard is that both parties love each other, it seems a logical progression. It seems to me there has already been a case, I think in Maine, of a man marrying his dog.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at September 28, 2010 9:46 PM

I would like to marry,Warrington Faust
if he/she/it/ would say yes

Warrington will you marry me???

With Love
Sammy

Posted by: Sammy at September 28, 2010 11:16 PM

"""Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus"""

Bob Jones U, also banned, Gays and Lesbians from admission to their
so called right-wing-nut "University"
and Ron Raygun, and most of the folks
on the "Right" suported their possition

Posted by: Sammy at September 28, 2010 11:32 PM

rhody-how do you come to your conclusion?Wishful thinking?
In every referendum on the issue,gay marriage lost and one would think that gays and lesbians probably voted in a high percentage of their population because of the direct effect it would have on their lives.
Most voters like myself care little about the whole thing,but it still lost.
Gay marriage has only been legalized by legislation in 2 or 3 states.
Judicial decisions have accounted for the other places it's been legalized.
We could have a referendum here,but gays oppose that,probably because they think they'd lose.

Posted by: joe bernstein at September 30, 2010 4:23 AM