tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post6652477719086028054..comments2023-05-25T03:08:18.166-06:00Comments on Montana Headlines: Marriage and sex -- not necessarily in that orderUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-32778300940947171322008-05-26T20:14:00.000-06:002008-05-26T20:14:00.000-06:00You are right that divorce cuts across political b...You are right that divorce cuts across political boundaries. (Although being married is one of the strongest independent predictors of voting Republican.)<BR/><BR/>But when no-fault divorce laws first came about, they were very much a product of the cultural left and were opposed by cultural traditionalists. <BR/><BR/>Easy divorces were one of the "triumphs" of feminism, since the perception (actually a false perception that was part of a holdover from a century or more earlier) was that men had an easier time filing for and getting a divorce than did women.<BR/><BR/>The irony is that women have overwhelmingly borne the brunt of the poverty, social disruption, troubled children, and general familial instability of what the easy divorce produced. And so have taxpayers.Montana Headlineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16149094528547382638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-27468056748568482572008-05-26T07:39:00.000-06:002008-05-26T07:39:00.000-06:00Interesting that you say "the same cultural left t...Interesting that you say "the same cultural left that dealt marriage one of its biggest blows through no-fault divorce laws." It seems to me that the demand for no-fault divorce comes from all political persuasions since they all certainly take advantage of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-47134029737958064172008-05-21T11:56:00.000-06:002008-05-21T11:56:00.000-06:00Touchstone -- read the editorial again. The autho...Touchstone -- read the editorial again. The author is clearly stating that the bag of goodies shouldn't be there for anyone. The example of the sisters is given as a way of demonstrating that as long as that bag of goodies exist, there will be those who want to take advantage of it (and she specifically mentions that this applies to heterosexuals deciding to marry, as well.) I lean toward agreeing. Here are two snippets from her piece:<BR/><BR/><I>The troubling aspect of the push for gay marriage is the part that perpetuates the notion of marriage as a goody bag for sundry government and corporate benefits.</I><BR/><BR/>And...<BR/><BR/><I>It's easy to understand why gay people would want to get in on the marriage gravy train. There's just no logic for there being one.</I><BR/><BR/>You also write that "...mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family" are the kinds of things that "define" marriage. There is nothing there that doesn't describe many non-romantic, asexual relationships, such as ones that I mention: the two sisters, a single son living with his father, etc. Homosexuals rightly point out that heterosexual serial polygamy masquerading as monogamy has done far more damage to the institution of marriage than would gay marriage. <BR/><BR/>In other words, one argument that has been given in support of gay marriage goes roughly like this (and touchstone uses it to some extent in the comment above): "with all of the heterosexuals making a shambles and mockery of marriage, what justification do straights have for denying marriage to a gay couple that is far more stable and committed than many straight couples?"<BR/><BR/>If that argument has validity, then so does the following argument: "a significant number of people, gay and straight, have financial advantages as a primary motivation for wanting a government-recognized marriage or union (otherwise they would just get married in church or wherever and not bother to get a government marriage license) -- so what justification do gays and straights in monogamous, sexual/romantic relationships have for denying those financial advantages to people in other sorts of relationships?"<BR/><BR/>Ed, I do indeed address monogamy, but in reverse. If it is only our traditional religious and societal prejudices that have wrongly kept us from extending the franchise of marriage to gay couples, then what is to be said of the traditional prejudices against, say, polygamy or consanguinous unions? Who is the moral judge who determines that polygamous relationships do not involve love, stability, and commitment?<BR/><BR/>I would also point out that the same cultural left that promotes gay marriage was also the same cultural left that dealt marriage one of its biggest blows through no-fault divorce laws. If promoting monogamy and long-term stable relationships (as goof mentions) is in the best interest of the state (and I don't necessarily disagree,) then the same people promoting gay marriage using the props of generic "monogamy" and "stable relationships" should by all rights be working to make it harder to get divorces.<BR/><BR/>Unlike many of my conservative brethren, I accept that gay marriage or civil unions will become standard fare in a changing America. I am simply intrigued by the idea that perhaps a part of the answer to this question may be to cut off the "gravy train" part of marriage, making it a purely religious or cultural phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>I would be married whether or not it was a state-recognized institution, and regardless of whether there were any financial benefits or penalties. Gay couples today have a variety of churches and clergy who are happy to perform the religious/cultural ceremony of marriage for them. <BR/><BR/>It seems reasonable to level the playing field by eliminating the legal, financial, and corporate benefits of marriage entirely, and let the institution rise or fall on its own merits.Montana Headlineshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16149094528547382638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-49999830825822253662008-05-21T10:34:00.000-06:002008-05-21T10:34:00.000-06:00I could have overlooked it in your very long post,...I could have overlooked it in your very long post, but I don't remember seeing the word "monogamy." Maybe that's what government ought to be in the business of promoting. Two people who devote themselves exclusively to each other. This creates a kind of stability in society at large because people who are serious enough to tie the knot signal that they have put aside childish things are ready to get down to the business of being stable, forward-looking citizens.<BR/><BR/>This is a world away from two people co-habitating to save money, or because they happen to be sisters. And at the risk of spouting a mantra, weren't biology and tradition the main props of the institution of slavery?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-56459067444056317272008-05-20T19:59:00.000-06:002008-05-20T19:59:00.000-06:00I think a lifelong commitment to a partner/spouse ...I think a lifelong commitment to a partner/spouse is still in society's best interests, children or no.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7592841981416728347.post-47276680250065363502008-05-20T17:01:00.000-06:002008-05-20T17:01:00.000-06:00Hm. Interesting. I read the editorial in a vastly ...Hm. Interesting. I read the editorial in a vastly different way than you. First, it seems Harrop is advocating for non-married, asexual unions to have the same rights and goodie bags as married couples.<BR/><BR/>Also, she seemed clearly in support of gay marriage. <BR/><BR/>However, the notion that marriage or coupling in only about sex -- that's patently ridiculous. For someone who laments the passing of tradition of marriage, you seemly strangely unaware of what that tradition actually is, what marriage symbolizes.<BR/><BR/>The best definition, IMHO, of what marriage is was written by the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the decision that legalized gay marriage in that state.<BR/><BR/>She wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. 'It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.' Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition."<BR/><BR/>Sex is there in the word "intimacy," but rightly wrapped in the closeness and security that word bestows.<BR/><BR/>You ask, rhetorically: "What is the equivalence between the straight couple and the gay couple, then?"<BR/><BR/>The answer isn't sex, as you claim. If anything, in our more open society, in which sex is neither legally nor socially bound to marriage, marriage is <I>less</I> about sex now than it has ever been.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm with Justice Marshall. Marriage is about mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. It remains an "esteemed institution," and will remain so, I have no doubt.<BR/><BR/>I should add that I have two family members who are both "married"; between the two, they have three children, biologically related to at least one parent. These women embody the ideals set forth by Justice Marshall. In fact, more so than many straight married couples I know. <BR/><BR/>In short, there's no societal need that exists that I can see that could reasonably deny gay couples the same officially sanctioned esteem for their projects in love and family.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960410598279620214noreply@blogger.com