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."

[narby]

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

Huh. Yeah.

And two parent families are far more likely to exist if they marry.

You need to look up an extreemly good article that came out around 6-8 years ago, titled "Dan Quale was Right" in Atlantic Monthly. It was the cover story, so it shouldn't be too hard to find.

It is a highly researched article that covers the single parenthood and marriage discussion very thoroughly. It's a long article, and worth the effort to look it up.

The synopsis is that it demolishes totally any rationalization for single (meaning unmarried) parenthood.

[Mr. Silverback]

Please ignore my last post and read this one.

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 in and of itself.

As for sticking together for your kids, what do you think the level of mongamistic practice is among male homosexuals? What's the average length of their "committed relationships"? As for female homosexuals, you know that old joke about lesbians renting a U-Haul on the second date? Do you think that got started because they do that once and stay together for fifty years, or because it happens over and over again? Sound like a stick-too-itive, stable environment for kids?

Of course, this is largely academic. There will be a wave of gay marriages, and then things will go back to where they are now, except that we will be more accepting of an activity that is destructive to our culture, and there sure won't be a bunch more kids living in two-parent homes.

[RobRoy]

No marriage = no commitment

It is LITERALLY that simple. The lack of commitment keeps a nice "edge" on things.

[Lorianne]

That may be true, but it's an entirely different issue. Whether parents stick together for the benefit of their kids is what is at issue, not whether or not homosexual marriage is "bad" or "good".

I really don't see the connection, especially in light of the fact that we have evidence of a society with low marriage rates, but high two-parent household rates.

In other words, I don't see how conflating these two issues helps kids (and by extension, society). What seems to be important for kids, is whether or not parents stick together and raise their kids.

[Lorianne]

But it is not that simple in Scandinavia, where there is a lower marriage rate than ours, but a higher two-parent household rate than ours.

[narby]

I'm not sure how to create a link. But you can cut and paste this for the article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/family/danquayl.htm

[Orangedog]

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.

That won't help, IMO. People who want to get married will jump through whatever hoops they have to. It will just be more money for the lawyers. Get rid of the no-fault divorce laws that have turned marriage into an expensive joke with a shelf life of a loaf of bread and I think we'll see better results.

[cyborg]

How dare people deprive divorce attorneys the right to go on expensive junkets and fund their private golf club memberships.

[Lorianne]

Again, I don't see the connection between gays marrying and the relative benefit of kids. First off, gays can have their own kids (without adoption) via various means, which is a separate issue. Even so, this type of situation is in the minority.

The vast majority of kids are born to heterosexual parents. The issue is whether or not those parents stick together to raise their kids. If there were some evidence that heterosexual parents were abandoning their kids to go off and enter a gay marriage ... then I might see a connection.

Whether or not gay marriage is bad in and of itself is immaterial to the lives of children born to heterosexuals who don't stay together. Homosexual marriage is a separate issue, and one that I don't see a direct correlation to the failure of heteosexuals in our society to stick together for the benefit of thei offspring. It appears to me like heterosexuals scapegoating homosexuals for their own failures in childrearing, which let's face it, pre-date this homosexual marriage thing by decades.

[Lorianne]

That will involve even MORE lawyers.

[Orangedog]

I should be ashamed of myself. Why, my idea would have destroyed one of the very few growth industries left in the country. We MUST have more lawyers and more work for them to do ;)

[Orangedog]

How would rolling back the no-fault divorce laws to where things were prior to when the first one was passed involve more lawyers?

[Lorianne]

Thank you for the link. I am familiar with that article. I think everyone pretty much agrees, and the evidence supports, that two-parent households are better for children than one-parent households. Marriage is one way but doesn't ensure that they'll stay together.

So, how do we get more two-parent households who stay together?

[Lorianne]

Ajudicating who is "at fault" and proving it in court.

[cyborg]

I think the divorce attorneys are just salivating at the prospect of legalized same sex marriage... more clients woo hoo!

[Orangedog]

It still takes two lawyers, whether or not fault has to be proved. If you look at the divorce rates before no-fault laws, I think it would be pretty obvious that we got more divorces and more single parent families after those laws were passed.

[RobRoy]

Absolute truth is absolute truth, no matter where you apply it. It is, in fact, quite simple. The edge is there, and everybody feels it.

[Orangedog]

That's the rub with my idea of "let the homosexuals have it and suffer the consequences." I'm not fond of the idea of getting more billable hours.