The Skeleton in the Closet, Divorce and Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

On Election Day, initiatives defining marriage as one man and one woman passed overwhelmingly in all eleven states that had them on the ballot. But this victory isn’t necessarily permanent. Unless we continue to make a compelling case for the sanctity of marriage, public opinion is quite likely to drift in the other direction.

And it’s going to be increasingly difficult to make that case unless we deal with some of the skeletons in our own closet.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, a well-known author and lecturer on marriage, pointed this out in a pre-election article, writing, “We can’t win the fight for heterosexual marriage without confronting the issue of divorce.”

She’s absolutely right. Although the divorce rate in this country has declined a bit in recent years, roughly half of marriages that begin every year are still fated to end in divorce. And the divorce rate among Christians, I’m sorry to say, matches or even exceeds that of nonbelievers.

The truth is that same-sex “marriage” and no-fault divorce are inextricably linked. As Morse writes, “Gay marriage is the end of the trend that no-fault divorce began. The legal innovation of unilateral divorce began to reduce marriage to nothing but a temporary association of individuals. If marriage is merely a free association of individuals, there is no principled reason to exclude gay couples.”

Our opponents recognize our hypocrisy on the issue of divorce, and they point it out every chance they get—not usually out of any burning desire on their part to get rid of no-fault divorce, but to strengthen their own case. In Slate.com, for example, columnist Dahlia Lithwick wrote, “If you believe gay marriage is single-handedly eroding a sacred and ancient institution, you cannot possibly be pro-divorce. That means any legislation passed in recent decades making divorce more readily available—from no-fault statutes to the decline of adultery prosecutions—should also be subject to bans, popular referendum, and constitutional amendment.” Lithwick was writing in favor of gay “marriage,” but she put her finger on a point we often ignore.

One may not face the temptation to engage in homosexual behavior. But how do we handle the temptations we do face? If we don’t honor the sanctity of marriage in our own lives, how can we ask others to do so? We’re no better at that point than the man with the beam in his eye in the parable, trying to remove a speck of dust from his neighbor’s eye.

I think many of us instinctively recognize this truth, and it’s why some Christians refrain from speaking out against same-sex “marriage.” But Morse has a better strategy. She writes, “We need not be shamed into silence on this point. It is just that the alternative response requires us to look the divorce issue squarely in the face. Admit that unilateral divorce has undermined marriage. Agree that straight people have already done a lot of harm to marriage. Our attitude toward divorce is too casual. . . . We need to work to change all that.” Only when we’re willing to take a real stand in favor of marriage will we have an audience when we stand up and talk about what marriage means.

This is very accurate. It struck me one day a few years ago, I'm not even really sure it was the gay marriage issue, but it could have been, and I realized: this all started with divorce.

And I'm divorced!

And, I hate to say this, but I've been thinking about it with the situation in the Episopal church also, that whole church was started so ONE GUY could get a divorce.

It is very, very true, that if marriage is just an arrangement for the happiness of adults, it can't properly be denied to gays, why on earth should it be?

It is also true that divorce has caused more misery to children than gay marriage is ever likely to.

And no, I'm not pro gay marriage.

Good, thought provoking post epow.

The homosexual marriage issue has slipped off the front page, but it's proponents still wait for the opportune moment to challenge the laws that have been passed prohibiting same sex marriage. As this author points out, as long as traditional marriage is plagued by a 50% divorce rate it's much easier for advocates for legalizing same-sex marriage to make the point that opposite-sex marriage in America today is very often not the idyllic joining together of a man and a woman for life that it was intended to be. It isn't easy to disprove the claim that same-sex marriage would not further endanger American society and culture when 1/2 of all traditional marriages between Christian couples fail within a few years, often under violent and/or immoral circumstances.

The American family is in deep trouble today, and marriage between members of the Christian Church doesn't seem to be in any less trouble than marriage between non-Christian Americans. Whatever became of the biblical Christian standard of one man and one woman united for life? IMHO the plethora of no-fault marriage laws that were enacted over the course of the last few decades are playing a major role in the decline of biblical till-death-do-us-part marriage.

This is a very good article, and the divorce issue is most certainly our Achille's heel in this debate. When you mentioned the Christian concept of marriage being undermined, I thought about how anything Christian is being phased out of Christmas and in general from the public square. We won't stand up against the gay "marriage" thing for long since Christianity has been equated with all other religions as equally invalid in the public eye, and the idea of marriage between a man and woman is a "religious" concept. Too much of America has already conceded its Christian traditions to the muliticultural crowd and marriage is next to be thrown out the window.

When you mentioned the Christian concept of marriage being undermined, I thought about how anything Christian is being phased out of Christmas and in general from the public square.

That sad situation has been on my mind these last few days as well. It must be true that great minds think alike huh?

While I agree that it all started with divorce, we can't forget that it was the same groups lobbying for divorce as now lobby for same sex marriage. They strarted with divorce and welfare for unwed mothers. Then set things in motion to force acceptance of unwed mothers, removing taboos. It's all been toward the ultimate goal, of destroying marriage and traditional family, one step at a time.

As for why shouldn't marriage be denied same sex couples, I would suggest they have done way too much to destroy marriage and family, why let them finish? I will grant you, a lot of people enter into marriage too easily, but the solution is to make it harder to marry, not easier to divorce. And with marriage already in rough shape, how exactly is further deteriorating it, any solution?? It's NOT! The solution is to make people consider it more deeply before taking the plunge! Getting people to realize exactly what they are committing to, and discouraging females to have sex and give birth, outside of marriage.

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.