As gay couples prepare to legally marry in Minnesota, public divisions remain on the definition of marriage, with many liberal Minnesotans celebrating what they see as a milestone in America’s journey toward justice and equality for all, and many conservatives dismayed at this argument for undermining a core social institution. No surprise at these different responses. But something unexpected has also happened: the beginning of a consensus that the social institution of marriage is important for adults, children and society.
What happened? Until recently, liberals have been reluctant to speak in the public domain about the unique value of marriage, lest divorced people and single parents feel devalued, and lest gay people feel excluded from a privileged club. Therapists stopped calling themselves marriage counselors and became couples counselors. The Bush administration programs to strengthen marriage in low-income communities were dismissed as a way to discredit nontraditional families. Marriage became the “M word.”
But something shifted among liberals during the advocacy movement for gay marriage. Colleagues who used to wince when I talked about the unique value of committed, lifelong marriage (not generic couplehood) began to tout the special cultural significance of marriage as an institution whereby society gives approval and support, both legal and moral, for lifelong relationships. Civil unions seemed too watered down for them. And people who once feared offending single parents are more comfortable with asserting the benefits of stable, two-parent families. In a striking shift, it’s now safe for liberals to extol marriage and two-parent families without denigrating people in other family forms.
RE: “whereby society gives approval and support, both legal and moral, for lifelong relationships.”
Oh, that’s not what the gay activists want from marriage — there’s no illusion that this is about “lifelong relationships.” They are simply seeking forced [and mostly faux] societal approval of their particular minority sexual attraction.
But the writer is very correct that the tone about marriage has shifted. Before it was “marriage is this patriarchal oppressive institution of the state and who needs it.” Now it’s all about how nothing short of marriage is a full and completed relationship and kids need married parents. It’s very interesting, actually. There have been numerous articles in the NY Times of late pointing out that marriage is increasingly becoming one of the great advantages of the upper-middle class while lack of marriage is a huge obstacle to the lower class. That probably wouldn’t have been said ten years ago.
But the question it what is to be the definition of marriage? And why are groups left out of the new definition not entitled to challenge the new definition on the same basis that the homosexuals challenged it? If marriage is redefined to be between two people whether homosexual or heterosexual on logical basis does the redefinition end there? Why is two the magic number? What is wrong with a marriage of three homosexuals?
My prediction is that this spells the end of state recognized marriage because they want be able to say no to any combination of people who want to get marital benefits, they can’t afford it so they will say if we have to recognize all arrangements we will recognize none.
RE: “There have been numerous articles in the NY Times of late pointing out that marriage is increasingly becoming one of the great advantages of the upper-middle class while lack of marriage is a huge obstacle to the lower class.”
This seems to have been very well-covered by Murray’s book “Coming Apart” — here’s an interesting summary of his theses:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170733817181646.html