1. Their belief that marriage is a religious or natural institution that government has recognized and adopted. As such, it isn't the place of government to redefine it.
2. Exercising their veto over a court that tossed aside a vote of the people.
3. Wanting to prevent the further expansion of government involvement into personal relationships.
4. Their personal understanding or intuition of the nature of marriage.
5. Encouraging the model of a married mother and father as the ideal for raising the next generation and promoting the best conditions for society.
6. A suspicion that there is more behind the push to neuter marriage licensing than simply making an old lesbian couple happy – something that will be detrimental in the long run; an undermining of parental authority, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association.
7. General resistance to change.
8. General disapproval of homosexual behavior.
9. General disapproval of homosexuality activists (wanted to vote against them).
10. The "ick" factor.
11. Just to stick it to LGBT people.
12. Their church told them to.
Most people probably have a combination of motivations.
Based on what I've observed, I'd say the majority of California Marriage Amendment supporters were motivated primarily by 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Marriage neutering activists seem certain it was mostly 7, 11, and 12 – especially 12. But given how many of the same voters must have voted "for change" in other matters on the same ballot, their overall tolerance, and how few of them are regular churchgoers who closely follow church instruction, I don't see that. (I think less than half of regular eligible attendees of "conservative" churches register to vote, and something like less than half of those who register even bother to vote.)
[Much more after the jump.]
While I heard the satirist citing the official campaign materials of the California Marriage Amendment proponents, the reality is that political science-filtered statements by campaigners are not the same thing as why people vote the way they do. Campaign messages have to be kept short and simple, focusing on what will gain the widest and strongest support or prompt interest to check into the matter further. Notice that the marriage neutering proponents didn't ran ads showing same-sex ceremonies, or telling us we should be okay with judges making this decision for us. So the satirist's tacit charge that marriage defenders were hiding their true motivation is flimsy.
Most of the motivations I listed above do not transfer to banning divorce, at least not as proposed in the language of the ballot measure, which doesn't allow for traditional or Biblical grounds for divorce.
For example, I believe that marriage unites the sexes, and that is a sacred institution. I believe what the Bible says about marriage. I believe that uniting a bride and groom in this way is good for society and best for raising children. I believe in limited government. I believe marriage had more to do with creating society than society had to do with creating marriage. I abhor divorce, don't plan on filing for one, and pray my wife never does, either. I'll quote myself...
One need not be religious nor believe in God nor believe that divorce is a bad to believe that authority over licensing requirements belongs with the people instead of the courts, or that state marriage licensing should be reserved for voluntary associations consisting of a bride and a groom…It is also disingenuous to invoke Scripture or religious tradition against those who hold such things dear with one hand and dismiss it with the other… Really, it is silly to say that because there is divorce, we should neuter marriage. It simply does not follow. A state-licensed marriage is essentially a kind of partnership. Partnerships are dissolved all of the time.It is also silly to say that because we reversed the recent court imposition of neutered marriage licensing, we should also outlaw long-established divorce. It wasn't just people who confidently affirm that marriage is a scared institution initiated and helmed by God who voted for the California Marriage Amendment. Even people who do not have moral qualms about divorce understand that marriage unites the sexes. Noting that something is created using a certain recipe and not other ingredients doesn't obligate someone to never throw that thing away. Legal entities can be dissolved, but not just any grouping of people can form any kind of legal entity.
Yes, the divorce rate is too high, and those who want to protect marriage should take steps to change that.
Have you heard of covenant marriage? How many legislatures that have ever voted to neuter marriage licensing offered that? I think that's a big fat zero. I don't see marriage neutering activists using their considerable clout to push it.
The fact is, many of the same people who are ardent marriage defenders have long attempted to reduce the divorce rate, some even started way back, fighting against some of the things they correctly suspected would end up being contributors to an increased divorce rate. And guess what? All along the way, they've been severely criticized and rhetorically assaulted and mocked for doing so.
Shacking up correlates to an increased divorce rate. Who has been speaking out against that all along?
Purity programs have attempted to reduce some of the conditions that lead to marital problems and broken homes. I have noted before that these programs have been derisively ridiculed. Hey, I wonder how many of those same-sex couples who have gotten marriage licenses exchanged purity rings when they had their ceremonies? Can anyone point me to just one couple?
Focus on the Family, anyone? Promise Keepers?
Dr. Neil Clark Warren cited a desire to lower the divorce rate as one of the reasons for starting the EHarmony.com business. We all know how he and the business have been portrayed, now don't we?
Dr. Laura did not express public support of the California Marriage Amendment (as far I can recall), but has offered much advice on avoiding divorce, at least until all minor children are raised, and has stated many times that marriage is sacred. She has stated the importance of children being raised by a mother and a father. There are lies, misrepresentations, and distortions, half-truths, and outdated trashings of her all over the web.
Come to think of it, is there a single prominent voice against divorce that the marriage neutering advocates have ever been anything but hostile towards? Evangelical Protestant churches? The Roman Catholic Church? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? I struggle to think of any examples, which isn't surprising because the philosophy underlying much of marriage neutering support from the general public is the very same that encourages divorce: "My personal desires are more important than society, marriage, children, and my vows. If I want a marriage license, then I have a right to it. If I now desire something other than being with my spouse, I have a right - even an obligation - to leave."
So now, having backed no-fault divorce, making divorce easier, even incentivizing divorce for women to the point that they are much more likely to file, and otherwise supporting conditions that contribute to divorce - all the while telling us to shut up with our objections, these "progressive" types are now making an issue of the high divorce rate.
Why? Because we didn't roll over and allow what's left of marriage to be replaced by a counterfeit.
It's like saying that because we didn't want the Constitution replaced with the code to Donkey Kong, then we should lose our right to criticize anything the government does - and we hate Donkey Kong. (Now there's a dated reference.)
Divorce will not be banned. The lawyer lobby will see to that. They make too much money off it.
I do believe in the sanctity of marriage, no matter how many times that is violated with divorce. I also believe in the sanctity of life, no matter how many people are murdered. Just as murder still happens even though it is outlawed, you can outlaw the legal process of divorce, but you can't force people to keep their marital vows or live in any way as married. All we can do is have public policies that encourage, or at least don't undermine, marriage and family.
(Minor edits made to correct typing errors.)
Now that you mention it, that is probably my personal motivation against the "ban divorce" and "ban infertile marriages" sarcastic responses to defending marriage.
ReplyDeleteThey are a response which expects that the world must be as clear cut as they think it is. Its an appeal to totalitarian enforcement of the logic of a two year old. If they must suffer from a rule, then that rule needs to make others suffer too (the object of being angry is simply to get others angry also).
While marriage defenders have a great deal of effective communications which can curb divorce, that is all thrown out the window for the final solution -- government eradication.
Sure marriage is "death do us part" and you aren't dead yet. But marriage is also by free will and choice. If they want me to take them seriously (and I'm sure they don't), and their totalitarian ambitions, then tell me how you can legally enforce both at the same time.
At times, it seems that you want your readers to believe that the "ban divorce" prankster is serious, reflecting the true demands of progressives.
ReplyDeleteJohn Marcotte, the person behind the "California Protection of Marriage Act" is taking an Onion headline to its extreme. That's all it is. Yes, he's playing off a weak line of argument, but satire doesn't require that one play off a strong argument.
Suggesting that John Marcotte represents progressives is about as honest as suggesting that Ted Haggard represents traditionalists.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteReconcile this for me.
The commentary I've read from marriage neuterists is much along the lines of Homer Simpson when he said, "its funny because it is true".
But sometimes when you explain a joke it isn't funny anymore, because reality gets the better of it.
Then we get people hiding behind the umbrella of, "it was just meant to be funny".
The only reason these people are not serious is that they want divorce and neutered marriage. But they are very serious in that if they can't have it they want others to suffer too.
They aren't serious. This is the latest version of God Hates Shrimp.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one making this argument, so I'm not the best one to ask about the reasoning behind it. You're asking me to read minds, so all of this comes with a large caveat.
I suspect that those making this argument do so in an effort to respond to what they perceive to be a religious argument. They are basically playing a version of reducto ad absurdum.
If, as they see it, their opponents want to play by Biblical law, then they want to show the impracticality of taking that to an extreme. They are not trying to persuade folks like you. Their intended audience is closer to the middle.
PW, if I may add a few to your list of why people supported Prop 8:
ReplyDelete13. An underlying feeling that, after all the words and all the ads on it, the fact is that neutering marriage is one huge step in the dark, that we have no idea what it could bring down the line, and that when in doubt about such things, the best thing to do is to vote No (which in this case, of course, meant voting Yes).
14. Somewhat related to #13, a feeling that whatever else it may be, neutering marriage is a radical change in the understanding of marriage, and that our children and grandchildren will have an entirely different conception of what marriage means because of it, and we have no idea how it may affect them.
15. A general belief that guidance on cultural issues from tradition or religion is better than guidance from supposedly enlightened elites. (This is the big cultural gap, which so many in the news media, the entertainment industry, and the campuses can't accept. I will expand on this theme later).
Expanding on #10, the "ick" factor....a revulsion toward the idea of contaminating an important cultural relationship between persons, which is valuable in its non-sexual nature (sibling relationships in the case of consanguineous marriages; friendships and camaraderie in the case of same-sex marriages), by officially stating that it could also be a sexual relationship.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteLet me say this more simply,
Are they making a point or not?
If so, even if they are making their point through humor, they are serious. I'm not attacking their humor. But their underlying point is still disasterous.
On Lawn, I think I answered that in my previous comment.
ReplyDeleteThey are trying to make a point through humor. In a similar fashion, Playful Walrus proposed to hand out University of California degrees to those participating in Indian gaming.
I would not infer from his post that same-sex marriage opponents want to destroy the value of higher education.
I'll just remember how hard you are trying to sweep this under the carpet the next time you seriously talk about neutering marriage because people get divorced.
ReplyDeleteMy point remains, their solution either way is to portray saving marriage as just as dramatic an action as banning divorce or infertile people marrying. Their problem remains in the expectation of some logic demanding the final solution from government.
And I'll just remember how unserious this argument is supposed to be next time you bring up how marriage needs to be neutered to bring it in line with the logic of allowing divorce.
On Lawn, you have been asking me to defend an argument that I disagree with. I am merely trying to explain it as best I can, but the fact remains that I am not the one making that argument.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is that marriage has already been fundamentally altered. That is different than arguing that defense of marriage means that divorce must be banned or that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Divorce has been around a long time, but widespread divorce has not. No-fault was supposed to create an easier, more just way to help people get out of bad marriages. Combined with a number of other social changes around the same time, no-fault completely changed our shared cultural understanding of marriage.
Most importantly, the state abdicated its role in enforcing the marriage covenant, and in so doing has turned marriage into a weak contract.
In a culture in which a man or woman can leave his or her spouse and kids to marry his or her affair partner, marriage means something different than it used to mean. As I see it, the state and culture have already declared that marriage is about the interests and desires of the adults, without regard to the children who might come from such a union.
That's the crux of my argument.
I do not conclude that the state must recognize same sex marriage. (I think I have been clear about my wish that this not be decided by the courts.) Rather, I conclude that our notion of marriage is fluid enough (or weak enough) that the stage is set for broader recognition of same sex marriage.
But perhaps I am wrong. Maybe it was the uncoupling of marriage and childbirth that undermined marriage. That marriage provided a social structure for the care of children was fundamental to the state recognizing and privileging the status of marriage.
Legal recognition for SSM first took hold in those parts of the world with a very weak marriage culture, where rates of children born out of marriage are rather high, and have been high for decades.
Perhaps Maine is the moment that the trend toward recognition begins to reverse, but I doubt it.
Time, of course, will tell us more.