Posted on 01/30/2004 12:59:29 PM PST by 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."
Marriage is not a guarantee. But it does put social, legal, and pain-in-the-butt roadblocks to parents breaking up. Particularly if we repealed no-fault divorce laws. Its hard to argue that these laws helped anything.
The best way to encurage two-parent households is is through social stigma to pre-marital sex and cohabitation.
If you're familiar with Defoe's Atlantic Monthly article (which I just scanned again), then you'll remember that with few exceptions, there are no desirable results for children in single-parent households.
If the best home for children is one with two parents, then why should they not marry? If only to give the child a name shared by every member of the family, I think its a very good idea.
I hope your real question is how do we get more heterosexual two-parent households who stay together. Homosexual "couples" are not parents just because they take in children as pets or spawn toys (and in all likelihood become objects of pedophilia by themselves or their lovers.)
Here's the answer:
(1)Reduce the legal incentives for divorce. Loose divorce law is what has been eroding marriage steadilly for the past 50 years (lawyers will hate that but who cares?).
(2)Instead of imposing a marriage penalty in the tax code, not only remove it, but lower tax rates for couples who stay married longer.
Homosexuals should never have rights of parentage and as a matter of fact should be classified minimally as mentally ill, and simply unfit, period. Theirs are twisted minds with a twisted agenda born of self hate, and their purpose is the destruction of that which is good and wholesome, starting with sexual relationships and taking it straight through to the destruction of the institution of marriage.
So, your point is that marriage is of no help whatever in encuraging parents to stay together?
Sure, some parents might stay together and raise children to their adulthood (the Defoe article mentions that the bennefits of two-parent families extends till children are well into their adult years). But I feel safe in saying that except for married parents, that is a very rare thing in America.
You may wish to take a day or two and sit in a some divorce hearings. It already is the Springer show, only On his show there is more due process.
Under "fault" divorce it's winner take all ... so the stakes for winning/losing are much higher.
More appropriately put, the party who was wronged takes all. As it is now, the first to file usually takes all. The lawyers, judges and everyone else who draws a paycheck from the divorce industry wants a nice, fast and efficient assembly line to process as many wrecked families as possible. They don't want to worry about who ruined the marriage or why. And determining fault is what the courts were made for, not pushing as much paper in the least amount of time.
If you look at the divorce rate, how could you argue otherwise?
If you look at the number of kids being raised in parent-absent households ... where there was never any marriage to begin with, it's nice to assume that had the parents been married they would have stayed married. But isn't necessarily so, and again, look at the divorce rate.
Sure, some parents might stay together and raise children to their adulthood (the Defoe article mentions that the bennefits of two-parent families extends till children are well into their adult years). But I feel safe in saying that except for married parents, that is a very rare thing in America.
Yes it is rare in the USA. But the article was using Scandinavia as an example. And there are more two-parent households (not necessarily married) than there are in the USA. There is also a lower teen conception rate, poverty, etc.
What are they doing that keeps more parents together?
Look marriage is great, but what is it that keeps parents together, married or not, for the benefit of their kids?
These people are our enemies.
There is some truth in this, and I think the causal arrow is definitely in the direction of a weakened institution of heterosexual marriage as it currently stands allowing homosexual marriage to be considered. Hetero marriage isn't being defended because a lot of people see little to defend in its current incarnation.
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.