Now that New York has joined five other states in the overwhelming momentum towards neutering state marriage licensing (we’ll ignore the fact that almost all of the rest of the 57, er, uh, 50, states have recently reaffirmed their bride+groom requirement), I wanted to welcome you with open arms to this wonderful and universal human institution.
First and foremost, I want to apologize on behalf of the New York lawmakers. I remember how hurt you were while suffering the indignity of having Californians "vote on your marriages", so you must have been hurt when the New York legislature did the same. Remarkably, you've held in your pain about that so far.
Secondly, I know you want equality, but you're still going to be missing the key benefit of marriage; uniting with the other half of humanity. I'm so sorry that you’re still being denied that full measure of equality, but I'm not sure what can be done about it.
During your struggle, you correctly derided the high divorce rate, people with multiple divorces, adultery, and sham and stunt marriages. So I know that means you will have a lower divorce rate than bride+groom couples, a higher rate of fidelity, and will not be making a mockery of weddings or marriage. I'm looking forward to these improvements to marriage.
Also, since you have appealed to conservatives by saying you want to strengthen marriage and value marriage and monogamy, and to raise your children within marriage, it is time to remember everything that entails. Not only does divorce and adultery harm marriage, but so does shacking up and sex outside of marriage. So, no more of that, okay? Or, at least, you'll have to permit some shaming or endure some secrecy to at least have a sense of decorum and propriety. For example, there are some heterosexual people who fornicate but keep quiet about it. Most people assume they are fornicating, but it isn't talked about because "sex is for marriage". By the way, monogamy means no sex with any other person, even if your spouse is approving, even if your spouse is present. If you can't handle that, then move to Europe. Also, no more having children out of wedlock. You should be in a stable marriage and your spouse should he just as responsible for any children you have. So, if your partner turns up pregnant, then if you're not already married, then "do the right thing" and make an honest woman out her. Oh, and any child born to her during the marriage will be considered yours, too, even if you didn't support (and obviously didn't cause) the pregnancy. You did want to join the existing marital norms, right? Good.
Please be aware that if your partner is paying child support, and you marry your partner, your income can then be included in determining how much child support should be paid. Also be aware that should you divorce, in many states, the spouse who earned more during the marriage will have to pay alimony to the other spouse. In some states, ten years of marriage obligates the higher earning spouse to pay alimony for life, or until the other person remarried. Also be aware that should your partner bring children into the marriage, and then leaves the marriage, you may be obligated to pay child support for those children or share custody.
I do not support my heterosexual friends when they fornicate, shack up, have kids out of wedlock, commit adultery, divorce for anything other than abuse/abandonment/adultery/addiction (which really are all the same thing), or neglect children to whom they took on obligations. If someone in my family married someone, they make that other person an in-law and bring that person into my life, which means even if there is a divorce, I may still keep that other person in my life. Conversely, a partner of someone in my family is not part of my family until they marry. I vow to treat you exactly the same.
Since homosexual people want to strengthen marriage just as I and many other heterosexuals do, I expect that a congruent percentage of homosexual people will now consider sex outside of marriage, adultery, raising children out of wedlock, shacking up, and divorce to be immoral. If not, you will skew the statistics and thus further devalue marriage, which you have previously assured me you don't want to do.
You weren't lying, were you?
Defending marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity. Encompassing the marriage related topics of gendered biology, kin anthropology, family law and policy.
Comment Policy
Disputes of fact and of opinion are why we are here. We may disagree with you, just as we hope you share your disagreements with us. Being friendly will usually invite friendly replies. We can and will delete otherwise great posts for unseemly profanity.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Comments anywhere on the site -- no matter how old the post -- will show up on the front page as a recent comment and in the comment RSS feeds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know that means you will have a lower divorce rate than bride+groom couples
ReplyDeleteProbably, actually. There's less social pressure on gay couples to marry, so those that do will be ones who really want to and have thought about it. Also, many of the marriages at first will be long-term couples who did not previously have the opportunity.
TRiG.
There we go, once again saving marriage by keeping away all the semi-committed.
ReplyDeleteTrig, In the Goodridge case, they filed for divorce 800 days later, despite having raised an eleven year old girl in their household.
ReplyDeleteAnd? One swallow does not a summer make.
ReplyDeleteTRiG.
Actually, if you are looking for data...
ReplyDeleteA study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men. The authors cited that this may be due to same-sex couples "non-involvement in joint parenthood", "lower exposure to normative pressure about the necessity of life-long unions" as well as differing motivations for getting married.
^ a b Andersson, Gunnar (February 2006) (PDF). The Demographics of Same-Sex "Marriages“ in Norway and Sweden. 43. Demography. pp. 79–98. http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
A Denmark study showed better numbers, but then again the marriage rate (as you noted) has dramatically dropped in Denmark also since marriage was neutered there, which is itself not a good sign for the health of the institution of marriage.