On Sunday, men will marry men and women will marry women, by law, in the State of New York. As we see the photos — and watch the protests — we should ask how and why it matters to anyone but the same-sex couples who marry. What have we learned in the Empire State and what’s next for marriage, in New York and elsewhere? National Review Online asked some experts.
Advertisement
Brian S. Brown Same-sex marriage comes to New York on Sunday. Whom will it impact other than the couples involved? The answer is: almost everyone. The New York legislature did not create a category of marriage called “gay marriage,” but instead redefined marriage for everyone. That means that anyone who doesn’t go along with this new politically inspired understanding of the historic institution of marriage will be treated under the law as the equivalent of a racist. Already, town clerks with deeply held religious beliefs about marriage have been told they will be fired if they refuse to sanction gay marriages. Some have already been forced to quit. We know from the experience in other states that professionals with strongly held moral beliefs about marriage will be threatened with loss of their professional licenses — and thus their livelihood — if they resist. Christian counselors will be put out of business unless they violate their religious principles and condone gay marriage. Wedding professionals who don’t want to be involved in gay weddings will be sanctioned. Most troubling, children as young as kindergartners will be taught in school that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage — and parents will be powerless to do anything about it. In short, the consequences to society will be profound.
But this is far from over. People all across the state are rallying to restore marriage by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Thousands are attending marches throughout the state on Sunday, and volunteering in droves at www.letthepeoplevote.com. We are determined to let the people of New York have the final say on marriage, just as voters in 31 other states have been able to do.
William C. Duncan Sunday’s media celebration of same-sex marriage in New York will surely miss the true significance of the change it heralds, a change that will extend far beyond the meaning it gives to new spouses. This is what makes same-sex marriage so unique in its impact on the institution. The decision to forego (through cohabitation) or end (through divorce) marriage undoubtedly has a broad social impact, especially when these individual decisions accumulate as they have in recent decades. But these kinds of decisions can be understood only as a departure from an ideal. Redefining marriage to modify its very nature is different. It involves the substitution of the ideal with an entirely different one. The new ideal, that marriage is the state’s way of endorsing adult relationship choices, will necessarily displace the old one, which had the potentially procreative relationship between men and women at its core. The widely ignored reality is that New York’s official policy will now be that children do not need a mother and father, because men and women are fungible. Will polygamy or open marriages be next? To some degree, that’s beside the point; the shift that will have already occurred is radical enough.
Chuck Donovan What will a few thousand same-sex weddings in New York do to alter what thousands of years of marriage have accomplished for society? In isolation — over weeks and months — nothing cataclysmic. Durable institutions take time, like boulders under a waterfall, to dissolve. But, in our time, marriage has already been subject to Niagaras of erosion.
The civilizing work of marriage has been a centuries-long enterprise, as societies sought and found four sources of stability between the sexes and, from their cooperation, within communities. Those four sources of stability are mutuality, exclusivity, longevity, and intergenerational integrity (the comfort, that is, of having ancestors and descendants — a place in this world).
Whelan says, " Marriage is a public institution," a perfectly valid claim--but my feeble understanding says that New York passed this law, not by an executive's dictate, but through democraticaly elected legislators, i.e., the public. I see the institution as still in the hands of the people. No mob rule lynched this institution in the fury of the night.
That marriage is weaker than it used to be is a reasonable argument--but to base that argument on the weakest points of evidence, such as homosexuality, and ignore the strongest points of evidence like no-fault divorce and the way most (if not all) protestant American congregations shake a finger at all divorces but are as willing to facilitate second and third and fourth marriages as they are first ones--is no way to win a public debate.
"New York passed this law, not by an executive's dictate, but through democraticaly elected legislators, i.e., the public. I see the institution as still in the hands of the people."
The legislators who were elected, were expressly elected because they had promised to defend traditional marriage. Now what say you? They have taken the words, 'Husband' and Wife' off of the State marriage license and will now instruct children that when they grow up, they can either marry a boy or a girl. They have redefined marriage to accommodate the personal circumstances of 2% of the population - but will mandate that 100% of the population accepts and celebrates their latest social construct. The next chapter in this saga will be a mass exodus from the public schools so parents can protect their children from the left's gender interchangeability re-education camps.
It is disappointing that a publication founded by William F. Buckley would choose to print such obviously facile arguments against same-sex marriage. Ideas matter. If conservatism is to remain a meaningful ideology it must offer more to justify its positions than "it has always been his way and so it must remain".
In a day in age when cultural and economic forces create numerous disincentives to the formation of stable and loving families, opening the "public institution" of marriage to same sex couples may just infuse the institution with a new strength and inculcate the public generally with a respect for the profound and transformative role that marriage plays in integrating the individual into the larger web of society.
If particular religious traditional wish to abstain from participating in this process, they will be free to do so under the New York law, just as they are currently free to abstain from recognizing certain unions between straight couples.
While the existence of legally protected same-sex unions may pose serious questions of conscience for people whose faiths counsel against homosexuality, Jesus Christ counseled that a man must "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". To the extent that people of faith see marriage as a holy sacrament, the laws of New York will not change what is right or wrong in the eyes of their God. At the same time no individual should presume to hold his own conscience out as the sole measure of what is acceptable to an ineffable higher power.
We need to recognize in the law that children have a right to a relationship with both a mother and a father - their own mother and father unless a genuine (that is, unplanned) crisis makes that impossible.
No child should ever be forced to pretend that being motherless is not a loss. It is a huge loss.
Gay marriage relies on forcing children to pretend that they don't mind losing the most precious and valuable relationships human beings experience - because gays need their children to pretend that having a stepfather instead of a mother is "just as good".
No child should ever be forced into that situation. Adoption is only justified when every decision in the adoption process is made based on what is best for the child.
Parents should take care of children. Not the other way around.
Divorce rates by religious affiliation & attendance. General Social Survey, 2000, 2002, 2004
58% Non-active Black Protestants
54% Non-active Evangelicals
51% No religious beliefs (e.g., atheists, agnostics)
48% Non-active other religions
48% All non-Christians
47% Active Black Protestants
42% All non-Christian religions
42% Non-active Mainline Protestants
41% All Christians
41% Non-active Catholics
39% Jewish
38% Active other religions
34% Active Evangelicals
32% Active Mainline Protestants
23% Active Catholics
The more devout you are, the lower the divorce rate.
They don't have the highest divorce rates. In addition, they are also the most happy and sexually active in their marriages. So...Where'd ya get that phony Stat? An atheist blog, or a Leftist blog? You need to check the Census, the CDC and the National Vital Statistics System for the truth. The only sources that site atheists as having the best romantic lives are atheist publications and sites.
Polls: Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?
Republicans — 87 percent; Democrats — 76 percent. Who is very satisfied with their sex life? Republicans — 56 percent; Democrats — 47 percent.
Not a single dissenting/differing viewpoint? Even MSNBC has Scarborough, and Fox had Colmes for a while.
I just imagine the libertarians/libertarian-leaning conservatives on the site reading until the end in the mild hope that their viewpoint might be noted, but NRO seems to have pole-vaulted over that segment of the coalition in favor of the same opinion said 9 times.
This is, of course, a complex issue that results from the unfortunate entanglement of church and state. What is at issue here is that historically the government, whether local, state or federal, has mixed the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage-- a lifelong social, spiritual and sexual covenant between one man and one woman, established before God-- with the secular understanding adhered to by much of the rest of the country-- a "not-necessarily-lifelong-but-could-be-for-some" contract that inheres rights, privileges, protections and tax breaks. As our nation has become increasingly diverse, more of our population wants to "redefine marriage" so that they can form partnerships with the same sociopolitical rights and privileges the traditional folk enjoy.
While the issue raises significant emotions no matter who you side with, it has a fairly simple solution. Let the government give the rights of domestic partnership to everyone, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. In other words, return the word "marriage" to its appropriate realm of religious practice and call what the government endorses what it is-- domestic partnership. Then everyone--heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexual, transgender, hermaphroditic, black, brown, white, mixed, protestant, catholic, jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu, wiccan, atheist, or agnostic or "other"-- gets the same legal treatment. If two people want the legal benefits of a domestic partnership, let them go down to the county clerk and get a "Domestic Partnership License" instead of a Marriage License. Then, if they want a genuine marriage in addition to the domestic partnership recognition, let them find a religious body that will endorse or sanctify their relationship. And, if they want only a religious endorsement of their relationship without recognition by the government, they can have that as well. In this way, before the law everyone is equal. And before the religious institutions of America, everyone would be free to follow their conscience as to the morality of their relationship. You don't have to accept my definition of marriage, and I don't have to accept yours.
You may not be surprised to hear me say I am a Baptist pastor from the Roger Williams and George W. Truett school of Baptist thought. That means I have very firm convictions about what I believe the Bible teaches, and I adhere to it as best I can. One of those convictions is that every person, whether they agree with me or not, should be afforded the liberty of conscience-- the right to believe and practice as their conscience dictates, and to be treated equally under the law of our secular government, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Regretfully, not all Baptists share this conviction, but it is this principle that lies at the heart of our First Amendment, which, by the way, Baptists were instrumental getting adopted by the Founding Fathers.
Same-sex couples marrying in no way minimalizes opposite-sex couples. "Male and female become optional?" Only for those couples for whom male and female is NOT an option. Do those against marriage equality think that gays and lesbians will magically turn straight? Do they think that if Mike and Bill can get married then all straight people will become gay? The word "preference" gets thrown around a lot, like someone wakes up one day and decides to be gay. The fact is many enter "therapy" to become straight, only to end up depressed and confused when they ultimately fail. Personally, I'd like to know at what age the authors decided they would become straight and not gay.
What does a child having a mother and a father have to do with New York's new law? Same-sex couples adopting children in NY has been legal for many years now. The only difference is now those families will become stronger and perhaps more children will have the benefit of two loving, caring, supportive parents.
What is marriage? I think for the vast majority it is when they meet someone that they fall in love with and can't live without and want to spend the rest of their life with. And no matter, if through circumstances or choice, they will not procreate, they still want to be married to embrace that special societal and legal bond to one another. Gays are just as capable of this and should be welcomed instead of demonized.
I might actually want to hear what Brian Brown has to say if I weren't so fed up with his organization's unceasing phone calls and e-mails. I've requested several times to be taken off their contact list, but the barrage continues. When you didn't ask for it, it's spam, plain and simple. If NR doesn't feel that this comment is appropriate here, maybe it can forward it directly to him. Brown is a public nuisance.
The beliefs of antigay religions should in no way be allowed to trump those of progay religions who welcome marriage equality. Much of Judaism has determined that the infamous Levitican prohibitions against certain homosexual acts were meant for idolatrous, temple prostitution, or they do not reflect a complete understanding of human sexuality, and so do not apply. More and more individual Christians and Christian denominations are supporting marriage equality.
Marriage equality is reaching critical mass because it represents liberation from the oppressions of the patriarchy's vested interests in maintaining homophobia and misogyny. Freedom sells.
The ones who are experiencing serious wedding bell blues over this are mainly the authoritarians who do not understand the basic principles of living in a pluralistic society in a secular republic. The history books will assign them to George Wallace status, and rightly so.
I'm curious, and I would like one of the symposiumers above to answer this if they can, can we agree that gay marriage, or at least civil unions is good for gays?
Can we agree that striving to live up to a commitment to a monogamous relationship is better than some of the alternatives? Note that this is not asking about your opinion on the morality of homosexuality, they are gay whether you like it or not, and many of them are going to engage in gay sex no matter how much it grosses you out. The question is should they be doing it in a monogamous and hopefully life long relationship or not?
If gays are allowed to adopt, as they have been in New York for a while before today, wouldn't it be better for the children that they adopt to have the stability of parents in a marriage or something like it? Note, this isn't asking your opinion on gay adoption, it is irrelevant, it is legal, they can do it married or not.
If a gay person loses his job because of whatever reason, wouldn't it be better for that person to have his or her spouse's income to rely on, instead of relying more heavily on government aid of various kinds?
When gay people become old, and most eventually do, there have been some very poorly done research papers that say otherwise but they don't stand up to close scrutiny, when they get old, they might not be able to take care of themselves, is it better for them to depend on a spouse who might be healthier who can take care of them for many of their needs at home or is it better to have them to go live in a facility paid for by medicare (like my grandmother, parent, aunts and uncles took care of my grandfather at his home for many years saving the tax payers thousands of dollars maybe tens of thousands)?
I think it is important to remember that gay people are still people. Being gay, especially in some states can't be easy. They are probably one of the more discriminated against segments of the population. And using derogatory language about them is more acceptable than it should be. Sure, Kobe gets fined for calling a ref a "f%$&#t", but do you think Steve Nash would be in the NBA if he had called a ref a "n!&$er"? I think it would be a much bigger deal and he would be in a lot of trouble.
I have heard a lot of people say "I don't hate gay people, I just don't agree with their lifestyle." When you say lifestyle they may have made a lifestyle choice to act upon their gay orientation, but I highly doubt that most of them chose their orientation. It wasn't a choice between a homosexual "lifestyle" and a heterosexual "lifestyle". It was a choice between "the homosexual lifestyle", pretending to live as a heterosexual and perhaps failing (here in Tokyo I'm told many of the gay bars in the Shinjuku Ward are full of men married to women) or attempting to live a celibate life and perhaps failing. Personally I don't think it is fair to a woman for a gay man to marry her if he knows he is not sexually attracted to her and has to fantasize about men to get aroused (or vise versa for a lesbian woman), and celibacy is not something that many of you would want for yourselves and it is a little unfair to ask it of others.
So for those who don't agree with the "gay lifestyle" what kind of lifestyle would you ask them to lead?
I think trying to match the institution of marriage that has worked well for thousands of years is a pretty good option. But since you think because of gay marriage Kindergartners will be harmed by being made aware of gay people marrying, or people won't be allowed to discriminate against gay couples who might want to use their services during their wedding, or it might lead to some slippery slope argument that this is going to lead to men marrying the stuffed bass that hangs on the wall in their living room, or whatever your argument might be, what is your alternative? If you don't have one, you need to think this issue through a little more, or you need to care more about your fellow humans.
