A threat to modern marriage [gay marriage and gender relativism]

Newsday ^ | May 23, 2004 | MYRA MARX FERREE

[Cracker72]

Myra Marx Ferree is a professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of numerous articles on changes in family roles and social policy in the United States and Europe.

May 23, 2004

After more than 1,000 gay and lesbian couples were married in Massachusetts Monday, the first time in U.S. history that such unions were legally recognized, opponents said they would step up their fight for a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman.

"This issue is boiling," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told the Associated Press. "It's gone from an academic debate to a real public policy crisis."

President George W. Bush reiterated his support for the amendment in a written statement: "The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges."

The pro-amendment forces, who market their cause as the "defense of marriage," now will engage in a national effort to elect sympathetic congressional candidates. However, the amendment has had trouble gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, and there is indeed reason for heterosexuals to oppose it.

The majority of Americans don't have or want the kind of marriage that this amendment assumes. Their anxieties about homosexuality open them up to being enlisted in a cause that stands opposed to their own interest in having marriage based on the idea of a freely negotiated partnership.

The "defenders" suggest that until now marriage has always been the same. They are wrong. The institution has changed considerably, allowing husband and wife today to define their roles in marriage independent of their gender. The "defense of marriage" is an attack on this modern version of marriage, not a defense of the marriages most of us actually have.

[Indie]

I'm waiting for the FR moral relativists to proclaim marriage among gays does no harm. Or to ask me "What harm does it do?"

Such ignorance does not deserve an answer.

[longtermmemmory]

sociology is for people who were too stupid to handle psych 101.

This entire article collapses because there is one universal constant. Marriage is about children. Society rewards the institution that benefits society.

Homosexuals only drain society they do not contribute to the future.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"

[longtermmemmory]

This is the senate and house committees that have the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is at http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov

Write letters of support to all senators and representatives.
These members count the letters of support.

There are now enough states to pass this due to the fact
they individually have DOMA's.
The FMA will take the Federal Gov. out of the marriage
definition game and put it to state legislatures.
This includes Federally making marriage one man one woman for immigration matters.

These members count the letters of support.
Homosexual special interest groups are trying to organize letter campaigns.
This includes internet and (oddly enough) nightclubs.

For those who have not seen it:
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.

This is very doable.

 

US House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman

---

Chairman's Welcome

Weekly Schedule

Press Room

Committee Members

Hearings & Markups

Committee Documents

Documents of Interest

Judiciary Democrats

Special Needs

Congressional Links

About the Committee

Student Research

Privacy Policy

Intern Program

Contact the Chairman

Homepage

---

Subcommittee Members

Subcommittee on the Constitution Mr. Steve Chabot, Chairman
362 Ford HOB, Tel: 202-226-7680
Mr. King	Mr. Jerrold Nadler
Mr. Jenkins	Mr. John Conyers
Mr. Bachus	Mr. Robert Scott
Mr. Hostettler	Mr. Melvin Watt
Ms. Hart	Mr. Adam Schiff
Mr. Feeney
Mr. Forbes

 

BELOW IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE WITH THE COMPANION BILL

HOME >

MEMBERS

Orrin G. Hatch CHAIRMAN, UTAH	Patrick J. Leahy RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT
Charles E. Grassley IOWA	Edward M. Kennedy MASSACHUSETTS
Arlen Specter PENNSYLVANIA	Joseph R. Biden, Jr. DELAWARE
Jon Kyl ARIZONA	Herbert Kohl WISCONSIN
Mike DeWine OHIO	Dianne Feinstein CALIFORNIA
Jeff Sessions ALABAMA	Russell D. Feingold WISCONSIN
Lindsey Graham SOUTH CAROLINA	Charles E. Schumer NEW YORK
Larry Craig IDAHO	Richard J. Durbin ILLINOIS
Saxby Chambliss GEORGIA	John Edwards NORTH CAROLINA
John Cornyn TEXAS

 BELOW IS A FORM LETTER TO SEND TO THE SENATORS AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

RE: Support in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment
H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26

Dear [ Decision Maker ]

I support the Federal marriage amendment. As your constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote. As you constituent I urge your support to amend the Constitution. Specifically, please cosponsor support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26 when these resolutions should come up for a vote.

This amendment will remove the courts from redefining the marriage based on social activist judges. This will also protect our state from any actions taken or will be taken in any other state. Private sexual behavior should not be the standard which defines marriage. Marriage is a public institution which is how we raise and support societies children. This institution needs protecting by putting into the Constitution what we have today.

This is not the first time the constitution has been used for social issues. All of the Constitution is based on various social issues. This only codifies the law which exists now.

This amendment will remove the Federal Government from this issue and return this topic to the individual state legislatures. The activist courts have made this a federal issue. There are no other options.

Any same sex couple has the legal right to make a private cohabitation agreement, they have the right make powers of attorney and have the right to make health care surrogate directives. These form documents are readily available for nominal cost or free on the Internet. Non of these agreements require any special lawyer help. Marriage under the law is one man and one woman. There is no sexual behavior test. Homosexual rantings to the contrary, their opposition is only attempting to impose public acceptance on what should remain a private consensual behavior.

Please support the support H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26, amend the Constitution and protect marriage.

Sincerely,
[Your name]
[Your address]

[shaggy eel]

"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges."

,,, exactly what needed to be said. Judges have far too much power.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - here's the last few paragraphs for you.

The author certainly sounds very academic and all, and is basically holding to a social Darwinist viewpoint - that there is no unchanging platform of - well, of ANYTHING. Everything changes with time, that is good, so let's speed it up.

Or because women don't wear corsets anymore and seldom have hired help, therefore marriage shouldn't be restricted to one man and one woman.

Make sense to you? (Scratches head....)

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

"Culture also changed to blur the distinction between what a man and a woman owed in marriage. The expectation that women leave the labor force permanently at marriage has vanished, as has the idea that a man becomes a "good father" merely by dropping his paycheck on the table. Fathers who are engaged with their wives in the day-to-day work of parenting and mothers who work are the norm rather than the exception.

Even though men obviously do not do half the housework or women provide half the income, we have institutionalized a third type of marriage. This partner marriage allows couples to choose the gender-segregated roles of provider marriage if they desire, but employers or states no longer can enforce such assumptions on all couples.

Since there are no legally specified differences in what men and women must contribute to a marriage or what they can hope to get from it, there is no legal need for partner marriage to be between a man and a woman. The assertion that a legal marriage needs one of each opens a door to laws that would again give different rights to husbands than wives.



In the 1980s fundamentalist groups helped to defeat a federal Equal Rights Amendment that would have blocked such a rollback. The "defense of marriage" for which such organizations are calling today is the same struggle but with a different face.

It's shortsighted to assume that conservatives will stop "defending" marriage if they manage to keep two men or two women from marrying. Their next logical step would be to spell out again in state and federal law how the differences between men and women should be "defended" in heterosexual marriages. That is a threat to the marriages that most Americans have and value today.

Marriages are different than they once were, and that is not a bad thing at all. "

[nosofar]

"Judges have far too much power."

Judges have what power they are allowed to exercise. If they don't have to suffer consequences, then why should they stop trying to expand their own power?

[shaggy eel]

Judges have what power they are allowed to exercise.

,,, and more. They're turning the law over every day. Some of their decisions should be left to votes within the political process.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

For what it was worth, I voted for him in the open primary and told my family to do the same, even though I knew he wasn't likely going to make it into the runoff. If he comes back and runs for office, I'll support him post haste. (This being Louisiana, he won't have a shortage of Dems to take on...)

[smcmike]

What harm does it do?

[nosofar]

"Or because women don't wear corsets anymore and seldom have hired help, therefore marriage shouldn't be restricted to one man and one woman.

Make sense to you? (Scratches head....) "


I think the author was saying gender has become less relevant in modern of marriage. We have the freedom to change 'roles'. You have 'house husbands'. You have women who are the breadwinners of the house, etc. In essence he's saying that the roles of husband/wife with the man and woman in a marriage have become negotiable and flexible. Therefore, since either man or woman can assume the role of 'wife' or 'husband', why not have two men or two women assuming these roles? I think this might make perfect sense....if this were the theater. (After all, men played to roles of women during Shakespeare's time.)

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

The majority of Americans don't have or want the kind of marriage that this amendment assumes

Yeah, that's why 39 states have Defense of Marriage laws and/or state constitutional amendments.

OK.....is it clear now?

[WFTR]

In spite her hand-wringing about the "big bad conservatives" this writer fails to defend her primary claim. Nowhere does she say how the defense of marriage acts or amendments will roll back the clock and force everyone into the kind of marriages that we once had. Undoubtedly, our society has changed, and social institutions have changed as well. The evidence doesn't prove that all of the changes have been positive. Some people may feel less trapped in bad marriages, but others have used their freedom to be even more irresponsible. The more-or-less traditional family is the basis for almost every stable, healthy society, and a return to some older practices around marriage is not a bad thing.

Defining Personal Responsibility
Bill

[little jeremiah]

I got his point, and you elucidated it further. I was reducing it to absurdity! Might as well say that because children can now get engendered without actual sexual congress, no need for marriage at all for procreation.

Obviously the author is too smart for his own good. When someone has too much admiration for their own brain power and not enough for simple common sense, along with rejection of all tradition moral absolutes, you get - Voila!

Handbasket time, moving in a southerly direction.

[little jeremiah]

I agree, and also her premise that women never were property owners and were considered property themselves is rather specious. At many times in history (including this country) women were indeed property owners and business owners.

Leftist academics like this present assumptions as a given, as though "eveyrone knows this" even there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, or to at least nullify their general blanket statements. And if one tries to bring up relevent proof that doesn't agree with their position, one is immediately labeled as "backward", "hater" or some other insulting perjorative, so that nothing one says can be taken seriously.

Leftistism is a mental illness. But there is a cure. I used to be one, and I got cured.

[TOUGH STOUGH]

"The more-or-less traditional family is the basis for almost every stable, healthy society, and a return to some older practices around marriage is not a bad thing."

Agreed.

Keep in mind that though there are a few conservative Sociologists, most Sociologists are extreme leftists and many are Marxists. The author of this article falls under one of the latter two categories.

[tessalu]

Judges are destroying America and the will of the people.

[tessalu]

Judges are destroying America and the will of the people.