Look before We Leap: Scandinavia and the End of Marriage

BreakPoint ^ | 30 Jan 04 | Chuck Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

The issue of same-sex "marriage" and the Federal Marriage Amendment will come to the fore in American political debate this year -- and, I believe, soon. Congressional leaders are strategizing right now. But there's one objection to our position that many of us have had to face, and we don't often have a good answer. Our opponents say, "What's the big deal? So what if gays and lesbians want to marry? This doesn't do anything to your marriage." Well, our answer has always been that it would weaken marriage. Why? Because it would take away the unique status and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples granted by society, in society's own interest, to encourage the family and propagation of the race. But that's an abstract argument.

Well, in this week's WEEKLY STANDARD Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution supplies us with both the best argument and evidence to make our case. In his article "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia," Kurtz asks, "Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage?" His answer: "It already has." How? By taking the gap that exists between marriage and parenthood and making it even wider.

"If marriage is only about a relationship between two people," writes Kurtz, "and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry?" He goes on to say, "It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with."

He offers Norway, the most conservative of the Scandinavian countries, as exhibit A. Prior to 1993 when same-sex "marriage" was imposed there by courts, not by democratic vote -- sound familiar? -- Norway had a low out-of-wedlock birth rate. The traditional link between marriage and parenthood was still in place.

But once same-sex "marriage" was legalized, Norway's out-of-wedlock birth rate shot up as the link was broken and cohabitation became normal. Gay "marriage" wasn't the only factor, but it appears to have been the decisive one.

And as it turns out, that was the plan. Kurtz cites Kari Moxnes, a Norwegian feminist, sociologist, and vocal enemy of marriage. She says "that Norwegian gay marriage was a sign of marriage's growing emptiness, not its strength." And, according to Kurtz, Henning Beck, the gay Danish social theorist, "dismisses as an 'implausible' claim the idea that gay marriage promotes monogamy." According to Beck and Norwegian sociologist Rune Halvorsen, "The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark . . . was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality." And let me add emphatically, the same is true in this country.

"If, as in Norway," writes Kurtz, "gay marriage were imposed here by a socially liberal cultural elite, it would likely speed us on the way toward the classic Nordic pattern of less frequent marriage, more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution." This would be a disaster -- more broken families, more crime.

Call us here at BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527) for a copy of Stanley Kurtz's article (or visit the link below) and for other materials that can equip you to argue our case persuasively.

Stanley Kurtz concludes, "In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in." The verdict: against gay "marriage."

[Mr. Silverback]

The Weekly Standard article is posted here.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[King Black Robe]

BTTT

[Orangedog]

Well, our answer has always been that it would weaken marriage. Why? Because it would take away the unique status and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples granted by society, in society's own interest...

Benefits like a 50%+ divorce rate, jackals, er, I mean lawyers, alimony, custody fights, court battles, child support, ruined credit, losing half of what they worked for...all those benefits. If the screaming pillow-biters want the joke that marriage has become today, I say let them have it. They will regret it more than anyone else.

[RLK]

Scandanavia has problems. I read a study somewhere recentlently that said Scandanavian girls are becoming casually sexually active in their early to mid teens with a proportion of older men leaving a late teen and early 20s polulation of higly sexually experienced womem and male virgins. Marriage won't survive it.

[KantianBurke]

When society produces a generation of Paris Hiltons, don't be surprised when men shy away from marriage.

[Lorianne]

But Mr. Kurtz also acknowledged in his article that the number of children living in two parent households is higher in Norway, than in the USA. The poverty rate is much lower and the teen conception rate is much lower as well.

In fact, whether both parents together support/care for/raise their children is more important than marriage per se.

[anniegetyourgun]

"The goal of the gay marriage movements in both Norway and Denmark . . . was not marriage but social approval for homosexuality."

The agenda - for all to see.

[Mr. Silverback]

If the screaming pillow-biters want the joke that marriage has become today, I say let them have it. They will regret it more than anyone else.

But as Colson points out, they don't want marriage, they want legitimacy. Once the gay marriage laws pass, they lose interest in the process and go back to cruising, or whatever it is Norwegian gay people do.

[Ringman]

That is is wery correct, young women are in a sense more sexually liberal than young males here.

However what this article suggests is not at all true. Rather, it's the fact that very few scandinavians consider marriage to be important that enabled homosexual unions in the first place. There was never any real debate on them, and they are rarely brought a up. Most straight couples just register cohabitation instead of marrying.

[Cacique]

ping

[Lorianne]

But Mr. Kurtz also acknowledged in his article that the number of children living in two parent households is higher in Norway, than in the USA. The poverty rate is much lower and the teen conception rate is much lower as well.

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2001/singleparentmath.html

[Mr. Silverback]

Though not everything is bad in Scandinavia, I've found that most of the "low poverty, low teen pregnancy shiny happy people" stuff is manipulation of facts or only half the story. For example, Sweden banned spanking, and child abuse skyrocketed. Not reports of "My neighbor still spanks his kid," but cases of real child abuse--"My neighbor punched his kid dead on the face last night!" But you won't hear any of that from the folks who want to liberalize the family, because they have to convince us that their ideas have worked where they're tried, and if telling us half-truths is what it takes, then that's OK because they're doing it for our own good.

[RLK]

When society produces a generation of Paris Hiltons, don't be surprised when men shy away from marriage.

-------------------

I'm not surprised.

[Lorianne]

I don't see how that is applicable. Either two parent households are good for children or they aren't. All evidence supports that two parents actively engaged in supporting/caring for/raising their children is the optimal arrangement for children, and for society in general.

Don't get me wrong, marriage is great, admirable etc. I highly recommend it. But sticking together for your kids whether married or not is the the crux of the issue, not the piece of paper from the State saying the parents are married.

[Mr. Silverback]

The position of Christian conservatives is not:"I don't care if all the kids get raised by crack whores, as long as there ain't any gay marriage!" The position is, "Children should be nurtured by a family that is some variation of a man and a woman married for life."

Given that position, an article about how bad single parenting is doesn't argue against me any more than an article about cheese curds.

[firebrand]

Two unmarried parents is usually better than only one parent, but marriage lends stability to what can otherwise be a nervous, tenatative arrangement. The promise to stay together is the important thing, made by two people who respect promises. Think of all the insecurity that vanishes, or should vanish, when that promise is made. That's when the unit becomes a family.

[Mr. Silverback]

But sticking together for your kids whether married or not is the the crux of the issue, not the piece of paper from the State saying the parents are married.

Gay marriage amounts to State endorsement of homosexual practice. That's bad.

[Lorianne]

Yes, we agree. However, the article you posted is misleading by ommitting what the original author, Mr. Kurtz, said about Scandinavia and how it stacks up for children ... vs. the USA. Gay marriage or not, kids seem to be better of there than here ... so he's not making his case very well that gay marriage is bad for society/bad for kids. Just becuase fewer parents are getting married in Scandinavia, it doesn't follow that they are also precipitating more "single-parent" households. The facts don't bear that out, which he conveniently ommits mentioning.

[Scenic Sounds]

I think maybe it's time to make marriage more special. It's just much too easy to get married and I don't think people wind up taking it seriously enough.

I think lawyers should be as involved in the formation of a marriage as they are in its termination.