The end of the gay marriage debate? (Jeff Jacoby)

Boston Globe ^ | May 16, 2004 | Jeff Jacoby

[Snuffington]

JEFF JACOBY

The end of the gay marriage debate?

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist  |  May 16, 2004

THIS IS THE week that same-sex marriage comes to Massachusetts, and thus to the United States. The fundamental building block of civilization is about to undergo a radical change -- a change opposed by a majority of American adults. How did this happen? The joining of gay and lesbian couples in marriage may turn out to be the most consequential development of our lifetimes. How did we get here? The answer to that question has several parts.

At the most obvious level, the legalization of same-sex marriage is the doing of four justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and three of her colleagues ruled in the Goodridge case last November that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the freedom and equality protected by the Massachusetts Constitution. The job of the judiciary is to interpret the law, but this was no mere interpretation. It was a wholesale rewriting of the law.

In effect, Goodridge was a constitutional amendment dictated from the bench. So brazen an encroachment should have set off alarm bells. Massachusetts judges are unelected and unaccountable and always, therefore, a potential antidemocratic threat. When they overstep their bounds, they should be strenuously opposed.

[Snuffington]

It's worth following the link to read the whole thing. Jacoby is dead-on in his analysis of how we got here, and why the traditional side is losing this debate.

But there's an implied element that is perhaps the real reason gay marriage is hitting the cultural zetigeist right now. I think it has to do with a cultural re-writing of the institution of marriage that has been going on for the past century. Marriage has lost its focus on procreation and enculturating future generations. Even in conservative circles, this is now largely seen as only one aspect of marriage, and not necessarily the most important one.

Gay marriage is already more in line with the sort of marriage most heterosexuals see for themselves than traditional marriage. It's focused on the pleasure of the married couple. Any thoughts or concerns toward future generations are purely optional, and certainly don't overcome the new primary purpose of marriage - the couple's pleasure.

[EdReform]

BTTT

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"

[maryz]

When they overstep their bounds, they should be strenuously opposed.

Serious question: How? Now that the courts trump everything else -- executive, legislative, tradition, dictionary -- who is there to say them nay?

[VRW Conspirator]

BTTT, Mr. Jacoby is on the bullseye.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"who is there to say them nay"

they can be impeached, but the other branches don't have the will and courage to do it; since the courts conviently take all the messy problems off their hands -- which they can then stand there helplessly wringing . . .

[don-o]

Jacoby concludes.

"The marriage debate doesn't end this week. Indeed, it may only now be starting in earnest. As Massachusetts goes, so goes the nation? That may depend on whether those who understand what marriage is for, and why its central meaning has endured for millennia, can finally find the words to explain themselves to their countrymen."

There is a temptation to get discouraged when contemplating the seemingly ascendancy of evil all about us.

Jacoby is encouraging with the clear argument that he makes. A lot of people will not (can not?) hear the moral arguments, but the pragmatic approach is also valid and coherent.

Doesn't he guest on Imus sometimes? Believe I'll e-mail my thanks and ask if he could get on the radio with this.

[jocon307]

Well, the very first thing I thought when I heard of "same sex marriage" being officially mandated by the gov't (as opposed to some private commitment ceremony, or whatever) was "who would have thought that divorce would lead to this?".

When I ran that thought by my very smart friend she said "well, of course it has".

It is noteworthy that divorce alone, not to mention divorce and re-marriage (repeat as desired) often deprives children of the right to live with two parents.

Divorce may sometimes be needed, as Dr. Laura puts it, in the cases of the three As: Addiction, Abuse, Adultery; but most of the people I've personally known who've gotten divorced are not sufferring in such situations.

Well, partial disclaimer, I'm divorced myself, but ex-hubby and I still live together, it's a very long, tiresome story. But it is clear to me that it is not gays who started to undermine marriage. It is also clear that society, which does nothing but jibber-jabber about "the children" better start to actually do something for them.

Or the little sex-frolics at Abu Garib will look like nothing in a few years.

Flame away!

[1066AD]

It's yet another attack on the family as the basic unit of society. Destroy the family and the state will gladly fill the vacuum.

[don-o]

Doesn't he guest on Imus sometimes? Believe I'll e-mail my thanks and ask if he could get on the radio with this.

Quick response from Jeff Jacoby:

Thanks for your note. No, I've never been on the Imus program -- I can only go where I'm invited! (I did, however, just do an interview with National Public Radio -- 2 minutes of the 25 or so that I was interviewed for will probably be on the air today or tomorrow.)

[Snuffington]

It is also clear that society, which does nothing but jibber-jabber about "the children" better start to actually do something for them.

That's a good point. Like most leftist Orwellian language, the "for the children" folks are anything but. They're social engineers, for whom actual people are inconvenient when they don't do as they're told.

In my opinion, there truly is an anti-child vibe in much of society today. It's like entire generations never stopped being children themselves, and with a typical childish self-centeredness they won't make the sacrifices necessary to raise large, healthy families. They'd rather just keep having fun. The very notion that the fun ought to stop, or even slow down, at some point seems like an insult to them.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Can anyone copy any more of the article for those of us with perfectly wretched dia-up? (mine is 26000bps today!!!)

Looks like a good article.

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

[steve-b]

The basic problem with this "for the children" argument is that it falls mute in the face of the obvious objection that people who are sterile or have no intention of rearing children are nevertheless permitted to marry.

Conservatives should know better than to lift arguments from Hillary.

[valkyrieanne]

Many people do not and will not relate to or agree with Jacoby's contention that marriage is essentially "so children will have a mom and dad." As the population ages, increasingly more people get married who have already had their children, or who don't want any, or who are too old to have any. It's difficult to argue that marriage is "primarily for procreation" when so many heterosexual married couples are not going to have any (or at least not together.)

[jordan8]

The Goodridge judges knew they would have the support of the cultural elites, for whom individual autonomy and the pursuit of happiness often seem to be the highest social values. In the allegedly "progressive" mindset, which dominates what you read in the paper and see on TV, social traditions exist to be challenged, family structure is highly flexible, and the mainstreaming of homosexuality is something only haters or fanatics could oppose.

Control the culture, control the politics. Modern culture, esp. in a democracy, is controlled by television and the movies, which is controlled by a couple of dozen unaccountable people at the top and a few hundred just below them. This technology pretty much short circuits the very basis of democracy, fair, vigorous, and open debate.

[Ronzo]

There is one reason, and one reason alone why gay marriage is wrong: it's the legalization of perversion.

It is a perversion from the point of view of nature.
It is a perversion from the point of view of culture.
It is a perversion from the point of view of history.
It is a perversion from the point of view of pscychology. (the honest pyschologists...)
. It is a perversion from the point of view of morality.
It is a perversion from the point of view of GOD.

There is nothing more to prove. Gay marriage is nothing less than the final step in the normalization of a universallly recognized perversion.

[Snuffington]

The basic problem with this "for the children" argument is that it falls mute in the face of the obvious objection that people who are sterile or have no intention of rearing children are nevertheless permitted to marry.

Actually, tradition has never had a problem with the former case - such people were pitied but not ostracized. The latter case is a distincly modern problem, and has laid a lot of the groundwork leading to gay marriage. Intentionally sterile marriages defy the traditional meaning of marriage.

You are absolutely correct that this is a rhetorical problem when arguing against gay marriage. But it's only a problem because so many people don't want to face up to the truth: barren marriages aren't terribly important to society. At best they serve to reinforce the norm of men and women growing up and coupling. But the only reason we care about that is because that's where babies are supposed to come from. That's the cradle of our civilization.

The larger problem, and the West is faced with it right now, even though most people are still in denial, is why so many people have decided the future generations - their own progeny - aren't worth creating. Why this loathing of one's own potential offspring? If there is an example from another civlilization on world history, I haven't heard of it.

[Snuffington]

It's difficult to argue that marriage is "primarily for procreation" when so many heterosexual married couples are not going to have any (or at least not together.)

As Ronald Reagan once said, there are simple answers. There just aren't easy ones.

Marriage among older people who are beyond child-rearing years isn't that big an issue, except to the extent that it reinforces the notion that marriage is a disposable thing, and the it's no big deal to be divorced and remarried.

But the problem of married couples consciously refusing to procreate as the norm is quite a big deal.

[headsonpikes]

If there is an example from another civilization...

Imperial Rome depended on immigration to fill out its legions and till the provinces. In the Late Empire, barbarian generals became emperor. Such was the death of Classical civilization.

Those wondering about the state of public morals in Imperial Rome ought to read Juvenal - he's wickedly and mordantly humorous.

Your comments about childlessness are spot on!

[ladyjane]

A reason why gay marriage has been able to happen in Massachusetts is economics. Massachusetts has been in an depression for the past few years. Along come gays with lots of money to spend. And gays are spending it big time on their marriages! They're having elaborate receptions and their friends are flying in from around the globe to attend. The tourist and hospitality industry is overjoyed. And just wait a year - the divorce lawyers will be making money hand over fist! (oops, maybe that's a poor choice of words)

[upchuck]

lj - You're stuck in dial-up HELL? I thought everybody in Kali had extraspecialsuperduper DSL :)

Here's a link ^ to the "printer friendly" version of the editorial.

I'm stuck forever in dial-up HELL also, so I always appreciate it when the poster of an excerpted article links to the printer friendly version. Not near as many graphics and nary a pop-up ad.