For awhile now I’ve have a two-part view on gay marriage:
(1) The government should get out of marriage entirely, leaving individuals to sign contracts amongst themselves as they see fit — and churches can decide which contracts to dignify with a ceremony.
(2) If the government must recognize marriages, it must do so on behalf of the people it represents. Those people don’t want gay marriage as of now.
Regarding part 2, Rick Santorum has the best argument: The government doesn’t recognize marriage for the good of those getting married; it recognizes marriage because it’s the best mechanism for perpetuating our society. (Some counter that, following from that, we should ban childless heterosexual marriage. I responded to that in an American Spectator piece.)
Well, it seems Americans don’t see their own marriages this way: A new survey reports that fewer and fewer of them view children as important to a marriage — though they report their children give them personal fulfillment, and of course that’s the most important thing!
Some findings:
Adults of all ages consider unwed parenting to be a big problem for society. At the same time, however, just four-in-ten (41%) say that children are very important to a successful marriage, compared with 65% of the public who felt this way as recently as 1990.
And:
Children may be perceived as less central to marriage, but they are as important as ever to their parents. As a source of adult happiness and fulfillment, children occupy a pedestal matched only by spouses and situated well above that of jobs, career, friends, hobbies and other relatives.
Also, this very interesting tidbit on race:
Blacks are much less likely than whites to marry and much more likely to have children outside of marriage. However, an equal percentage of both whites and blacks (46% and 44%, respectively) consider it morally wrong to have a child out of wedlock. Hispanics, meantime, place greater importance than either whites or blacks do on children as a key to a successful marriage – even though they have a higher nonmarital birth rate than do whites.
No matter what this says for the “our government recognizes marriage for the sake of children” argument, it’s downright scary that when asked what makes a marriage work, only 41 percent mention children, down 24 percent since 1990. It lost out to “faithfulness,” “happy sexual relationship,” “sharing household chores,” “adequate income,” “good housing,” “shared religious beliefs” and “shared tastes and interests.”
I suppose I should note, though, is that the question wasn’t “what do you hope to get out of a marriage?” It was “what makes a marriage work?” Since plenty of people have great marriages without kids — and few have great marriages while they’re cheating on each other or broke — it’s arguable that the new rankings fit the available facts about marriage better.
Blog: Robert VerBruggen
Loading ...
17 users commented in " Attitudes about heterosexual marriage and the gay marriage debate "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYou said “If the government must recognize marriages, it must do so on behalf of the people it represents. Those people don’t want gay marriage as of now.”
– This is untrue. You can say that a majority of people don’t want gay marriage, but that is a far cry from all - and it depends on where you go as to how much “marriage” people are willing to give gay couples.
I find your reasoning for supporting a “tyranny of the majority” situation odd - its sounds a great deal more as if you are trying to find a way to possibly justify your own biases. When has it ever been ok for a group of people to VOTE on the rights of others?
If you are truly interested in having the government get out of the business of marriage, I think I’d like to know exactly what it is you have done or are doing to make this a reality - then I might not be so quick to assume that your rationalization of most gay marriage votes wasn’t just a lazy way of justifying prejudices.
I apologize for being so vociferous here, but your argument about caring for children falls apart when we are talking about the children of homosexual parents. There are thousands of gay couples with children - if you care about children, how are you helping these families? They aren’t going away - so is your best counter that we just ignore them and don’t give them any benefits?
Quick answers:
–When one says “the people” want this or that, a plain reading would indicate one doesn’t mean 100 percent of people. It’s absurd to say 100 percent of people believe anything. This is a semantic argument, and it’s not constructive.
–It has always been OK for people to vote on the rights of others — it sure beats a dictator deciding the rights of others. Voters don’t always come to the right conclusions, but every law we pass or repeal either grants or takes away freedoms.
–I have been doing what I suggest other people do: (A) Voicing my opinion in a way that I hope will convince others, such as on this blog and (B) taking my stance on gay marriage into consideration when I vote.
–I didn’t say MY view was that we should ban gay marriage over children; I said I think the best argument against gay marriage is that the government’s involvement is about children. There are gay couples with kids, just as there are heterosexual couples without kids, but it’s the exception, not the rule. If the government is going to use marriage to safeguard the future via families, homosexuals aren’t the place to start. In one survey, only 5 percent of gay men and 21 percent of lesbians reported having a child. That survey was conducted online, though, so I’m not sure how accurate it is. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/25/BAG06IEGDN1.DTL&type=printable
Here’s some (maybe) better information:
“A major research project in the United States has revealed more than 35 percent of lesbians aged between 18 and 44 have given birth, and 16 percent of gay men have a child…The Williams/ Urban study estimates there are 65,500 adopted children currently living with a lesbian or gay parent, amounting to four percent of all adopted children in the United States. In other findings, 52 percent of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child, and 23 percent of lesbian or bisexual women are living with and caring for someone else’s birth child.”
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/press/AThirdOfUSLesbiansHaveChildren.html
This is larger than I’d have thought, but there are 73,000,000 children younger than 18 in the US. Even taking this estimate about .09 percent of children are living with homosexual parents. On a practical level, this is not a good use of tax incentives if children are your goal. Again, this isn’t my view; I just think it’s an honest one.
Go here for the 73,000,000 figure:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
My understanding from your postings then is that this is a numbers game and doesn’t really have anything to do with children. I assume of course that if you care about children you will take care of all children.
You never answered my first question: If you truly believe, as you say, that government should get out of the marriage business, what sort of direct actions have you taken to help try and make this a reality??? - besides blogging of course
I’m not sure I understand this statement: You said “If the government is going to use marriage to safeguard the future via families, homosexuals aren’t the place to start.”
– well of course their not the place to start, and they don’t start there, but homosexual families are families nonetheless, and you haven’t shown any good argument for not giving them the same rights as other families, and you most certainly haven’t provided any good arguments for treating a group of people as second-class citizens. I realize those are charged words, but that is in fact what you suggest
You also don’t seem to acknowledge the fact that there are people in this country who have passed laws allowing gay marriages or civil unions, which comes very close to marriage in many ways.
Jason
“My understanding from your postings then is that this is a numbers game and doesn’t really have anything to do with children. I assume of course that if you care about children you will take care of all children.”
–They’re not mutually exclusive. It’s about numbers of children.
“well of course their not the place to start, and they don’t start there, but homosexual families are families nonetheless, and you haven’t shown any good argument for not giving them the same rights as other families, and you most certainly haven’t provided any good arguments for treating a group of people as second-class citizens.”
–Marriage entails a number of tax benefits — I don’t support that (being pretty libertarian), but there it is. If you’re using those tax benefits to promote childbearing/rearing, you should target them. Homosexuals aren’t a good target, mainly because they can’t have biological children without going outside their orientation.
“You also don’t seem to acknowledge the fact that there are people in this country who have passed laws allowing gay marriages or civil unions, which comes very close to marriage in many ways.”
–The vast majority of legal gay marriage laws have come from (A) the courts or (B) state legislatures acting on court requirements. (There are a couple of exceptions I believe.) If a state passes a law allowing gay marriage, terrific! As I said, the government must pass marriage laws according to the people it represents. If the people elect pro-gay marriage reps, all the better. I just don’t think this is a case where throwing democracy out the window is a good idea.
I think I agree with you, except on the procedural details, so I’m not sure why all the “charged words.” I think the government should get out of marriage, and I even support gay marriage IF it’s passed through the democratic process. But operating under the political realities that (A) no one in a position of power will go with my get-the-government-out idea and (B) most people don’t support gay marriage (though they’re coming around), I won’t go so far as to say the courts should force states to recognize gays as married.
One thing I forgot to mention — I’m not sure what exactly you want me to do beyond writing about and voting on my views. I’m not the type to stand in front of the White House with a big sign.
I could be wrong, but didn’t the courts and congress play very important roles in bringing society around to the equality of African Americans: What about Brown Vs. The Topeka Board of Education, for example?
The role of the courts is just that - to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority - otherwise, how do you prevent a majority from trampling on minorities?
If blogging is all you do for any of your political causes, then I’ll accept that - but if you believe that government should get out of the business of marriage, I’m not sure why you don’t take time to at least write your congressman - it seems a little better than just putting some words on a web page.
Doesn’t the “Democratic Process” as you call it involve the use of the courts and elected representatives?
“Homosexuals aren’t a good target, mainly because they can’t have biological children without going outside their orientation”
– OK, this argument doesn’t make any sense. In your article in the American Spectator you don’t hesitate to talk about technological advances that allow women to have children at older ages, yet when we talk about gay marriage, you’re quick to forget about technology or all the other ways of fathering children. Gay people do not have to go outside their orientation to have children: They can adopt, they can have surrogate mothers or fathers, or they can bring children in from marriages that they had had - the latter which is what I’m sure you’re talking about.
Your tax breaks argument doesn’t seem to make much sense to me either - you say we should give tax breaks to childless heterosexual couples, but not to gay couples that HAVE children?????
“Doesn’t the “Democratic Process” as you call it involve the use of the courts and elected representatives?”
Yes, but the job of the courts is to interpret the law, not to invent rights for minorities. New rights for minorities, unless they’re in the Constitution (as rights for blacks were, so your Brown example doesn’t work), must come from the legislature.
“you say we should give tax breaks to childless heterosexual couples, but not to gay couples that HAVE children?????”
Yes, because marriage comes before children — if you just wanted to give breaks to people who ALREADY have kids, you’d increase the child tax credit (which gays do get). If we’re going to use marriage to socially engineer families for the purpose of children (and I don’t think we should), we should target the tax breaks to couples most likely to have kids where it’s easy to do so. No system is 100 percent, so we’ll give breaks to some people who end up not having kids, but this is by far the most accurate way to achieve this goal.
Gee, what does make a marriage work? I agree with the folks who say something other than kids. The marriage should be a strong, healthy relationship independent of any children. Over the years, kids have been used as “anchors” to steady the marriage, and IMO that’s kinda silly. If your marriage needs anchoring, then it really doesn’t have any business generating kids.
I also disagree with the logic stated as the reason that gov’t is currently in the marriage mix. In truth, don’t you think that it was simple inertia? The govt simply got into the marriage game because it had been in that game for a long time…
Marriage isn’t something that the government be involved with unless the private contract between two folks needs to have arbitrated dissolution. The tax break should travel with the kid. Whoever has kids gets the break.
As for the courts and their role in minority rights, well I’d say you’re both right to some extent. Unfortunately, instead of actually protecting minorities in some equitable fashion, they usually end up trying to make things right in retrospect -and they typically go overboard while they’re at it.
Under the current system, I believe that same-sex couples should be granted the same privileges as more traditional couples. I’m all for equal opportunity, so let’s let gays be as miserable *chuckle* as the rest of us. :)) Really I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Gay folks being married has no detraction from anyone else’s marriage.
Um, the job of the courts is to interpret the constitution - so if they say it protects gay people, why do we find it so necessary to over-ride their decision with a vote?
I agree with your last statement - and I’m glad you agree that gays should have as much right to marry as straight people - but they currently don’t and until that inequality is fixed, there will be no end to these types of discussions and debates - its going to be a long road for many gay people.
Thanks for your very supportive last paragraph
Everyone is so concerned with the problems with the marriage institution, which is basically a legal committment and if desired a religious commitment between two people. Almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and I feel somewhat unique, since we have been married for almost 40 years. We’re not madly in love, we’re in our mid 60s, but we do understand each other and know where to and not to tread. I’ll also add as an aside that its only in the last few years, as empty nesters ( 3 adult children, older two married, 2 grandchildren) that I’ve come to understand that I married my wifes mother, for whom fixing up the house was all important - to me its a nuisance. My poor wife married both my parents, who got married in the depths of the depression and I think much like them - save every penny, even though we are very wealthy. Yes, the wife has a 2006 Accord, I just bought younger son a 2007 civic, and we’re finally fixing up the front steps of our $600k house. If you folks think about this I’ll bet you will understand where some of your own marriage hurdles come from.
Now, re gay marriage - Its interesting to note that for a group that has never had marriage, the 8000 or so gay marriages in MA have had a minimal of divorces, far far better then heteros. I see gay marriage as affirming my commitment to my wife till death do we part. Yes we have gay friends, we love them, they are great people and we enjoy being with them and generally forget they are “different”
The whole issue is one of biblical based hatred. Dont you think there is enough biblical based hatred in the world today, eg the Islamic extremists who kiss their ‘bible’ (Qu’ran ) in the moments before they blow themselves and someone else up or fly planes into buildings. Christianity needs to be rid of this hatred, and as Christians we have to clean our own house, and call to task those who care for nothing but power, and use any holy books to perpetuate everything from discrimination against gays to murder. Think of the mad preacher from Kansas who celebrates the deaths of our soldiers at their funerals. I”v been face to face with him, he is just a little Hitler, filled with self hatred of some kind that he projects at others - that is the analysis of him from my Psychologist friend. As a Christian I am ashamed of what is done in Christs name. This is something we need to fix in our society and our religion. As we had a long civil rights struggle to finally end the second form of slavery in America - Jim Crow laws and terrorism of blacks - also justified by the bible, supposedly, we are in the middle of the battle to end the same type of discrimination against our gay citizens, to recognize their accomplishments, and end their agonies in our society. We should demand it. God demands it for us to live in a just world.
And other comments - I’ll second whoever pointed out that when the majority can pass laws limiting the rights of a minority, or preventing giving minorities rights that they never had, we do have a tyranny of the majority. That is wrong, or as someone said, it is wrong to vote on rights.
If you look around the world, virtually all of western Europe except Italy, Greece, and Ireland recognize gay relationships with either marriage, or what we here would call Federal civil unions, which are equivalent to marriage except for the name and are legal all over those countries. Some of those countries call the civil unions registered partnerships, but they are the same. Also add in Israel, Canada, and Republic of south Africa with gay marriage, New Zealand, a mexican state, mexico city (equivalent to a state - like DC in some ways) , and Buenos aires. Most of the western developed world is past the hurdle of giving gays equal legal rights.
I also count 6 or 7 churches that perform gay marriages, and 3 other mainstream protestant denominations that do “committment ceremonies, I’ve attended one, it was a Christian Wedding for two male friend, except they can’t use the word marriage in their ceremony. That will change in time. Gays can get religiously married almost all over America, it is just the issue of legal benefits that is the problem.
One of the issues re ‘gay marriage’ is that some religious people see it as an affront to their religion. The problem is that marriage has two meanings. One is a civil contract between two people, which grants hundreds of automatic legal rights to the couple, but requires a state marriage license. The other is a religious marriage, which grants no legal rights, and the value of it is in the eye of the beholders. Civil Uniions, while they grant many state legal rights, are not recognized all across the country, and grant no federal benefits, like joint income tax, survivors social security payments, etc etc. They are a poor 2nd class form of marriage, and their only real benefit is that as gay people take advantage of them isn he 8 or so states, people will discover that the roof doesn’t come crashing down, life goes on, and these gay people sort of getting married doesn’t hurt anyone who believes in things like love thy neighbor like thyself.
What we need are two national laws.
1. no one can force a church to perform a ceremony against its beliefs. That is certainly in existance, but needs to be explciitly stated.
2. States must make legal marriage contracts available without gender discrimination to all who apply and meet other requirements, e.g. age, etc.
We stand at the threshold of another period of fixing an ill, a shame in our society. Please help make it happen.
Leave A Reply