Wrong Marriage Debate Again
By Mona Charen
If only lower income heterosexuals were as keen to marry as some homosexuals, the United States would be a much stronger country.
Supporters of gay marriage (most prominently The New York Times, which reported New York’s legalization of such unions last week with about as much hoopla as it did the Japanese surrender in 1945) are ecstatic.
Actually, the first sentence of this column might be misleading. While it might seem, from the intense activism on the subject, that gays are impatient to reach the altar, it may not be true. Surveys in countries that have legalized gay marriage have found comparatively small numbers of homosexuals seeking marriage (between 2 and 5 percent in Belgium, and between 2 and 6 percent in Holland). It’s quite possible that legalizing same-sex marriage is sought mostly for symbolic reasons — as a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on homosexuality. (Just by the way, the funniest sign at a recent Obama speech was held by a gay-marriage advocate irritated by the president’s claim that his views on the subject are “evolving.” The sign read “Just Evolve Already.”)
Imagine if even one-twentieth of the attention we devote to gay marriage were turned to the state of heterosexual marriage — we might begin to see the true emergency.
Writing in The Weekly Standard, Mitch Pearlstein, whose book “From Family Collapse to America’s Decline” is due out in August, outlines some of the connections between family breakdown and economic decay.
The statistics are familiar. In 1970, 85.2 percent of children under 18 lived in a two-parent family. In 2005, it was 68.3 percent and dropping. Forty percent of births in America are to unwed parents. Broken down by ethnic group, the figures are 30 percent among whites, 50 percent for Hispanics and 70 percent for blacks.
Single mothers (and occasionally fathers) find it much more difficult to be the kind of autonomous, self-supporting individuals that our system of government was designed for. Single parents turn to the government for assistance in dozens of ways. Pearlstein cites economist Benjamin Scafidi, who has offered a rough calculation of how much family breakdown costs American taxpayers annually. Scafidi considered TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), Food Stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, S-Chip, child welfare services, justice system costs, WIC, LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program), Head Start, school breakfast and lunch programs, and foregone tax receipts. The annual bill to taxpayers: $112 billion.
But Scafidi was being conservative, Pearlstein argues. He didn’t include the Earned Income Tax Credit, the costs to schools that accrue from additional discipline problems, the special education costs that increase in lock step with chaotic family environments, and the added burdens on Medicare and Medicaid that result from more unmarried older Americans. Scafidi explains that “high rates of divorce and failure to marry mean that many more Americans enter late middle age (and beyond) without a spouse to help them manage chronic illnesses, or to help care for them if they become disabled.”
The flight from marriage is transforming the complexion of American society — increasing inequality and decreasing self-sufficiency. As Kay Hymowitz has written (soon to be joined by new books by Charles Murray and the above mentioned Pearlstein), marriage patterns are creating a caste system in a country that had traditionally enjoyed relative equality. Among the well-educated, marriage rates have remained very stable over the past several decades. College graduates are thus (mostly) rearing their children in orderly, supportive environments in which kids are taught to study hard, delay gratification and plan for the future. But 54 percent of the children of high school dropouts are illegitimate. Their parents’ lives are marked by financial stress, conflict and turmoil.
Since income and education are so closely linked, the outlines of a permanent caste system become visible, with the educated raising children who have the tools to become successful themselves and the poor and lower middle class continuing to give birth under circumstances that virtually condemn their children to poverty.
Much has been made by Democrats of the increasing inequality of income distribution in America. That inequality is real. But it’s not the result of tax cuts. It’s an artifact of family structure. And unless we find a way to discourage unwed childbearing and revive marriage, the chasm between classes will continue to grow.
Gay marriage is a distraction. The country depends on traditional marriage.
Loading ...
“Imagine if even one-twentieth of the attention we devote to gay marriage were turned to the state of heterosexual marriage — we might begin to see the true emergency.”
EXACTLY. The money, time and energy spent fighting against equal protection for LGBT people could be spent actually helping married people stay married and to encourage others to get married. The push for marriage equality bodes well for the importance of marriage in our society–the more people who want to exercise their right to marry, the more married couples we will have, with all of the societal benefits that attach to those marriages. I cannot wait to legally marry the love of my life!
Just as an aside, the money spent fighting marriage equality could also be used to carry out Jesus’ admonition to care for the poor and the disadvantaged. That would be the more Christian thing to do.
[And unless we find a way to discourage unwed childbearing and revive marriage, the chasm between classes will continue to grow.]
This is much more difficult then it need be, because the society doesn’t just have to find a way to solve the problem, they have to find a way to discourage unwed childbearing and revive marriage that social conservatives approve of. So when ideas are presented it is not enough that it accomplish these stated goals, it must do so within the comfort zone of social conservatives. It seems that solving the problem is less important to them then controlling the solutions. Making it difficult to believe that the goal is as stated.
Absolutely; it’s a distraction.
Vote “no” and move on.
But it has, like a tsunami against a decrepit wall, brought attention to the sorry state of marriage in our self-centered society.
If the tide does not stop here, our culture will become one more cautionary ruin in the history of human folly.
With all the huge problems in the homosexual world, its advocates should not be seeking society’s imprimatur for a relationship that ALWAYS deprives children of either a father or a mother.
@Heidi No one is fighting marriage equality. Marriage equality exists for everyone. Treating people differently is not the same as not treating them equally. One must be qualified for marriage, just like one must be qualified for a driver’s license. You can’t claim a 10-year-old is not being treated equally when he is denied the right to drive because he isn’t qualified. The very FIRST qualification for marriage is to be members of the opposite sex. That is part of the definition of marriage. You don’t want equality, you want the right to demand redefining a word and the social institution it describes, you want the right to demand societal acceptance of homosexual behavior, and you want the right to demand that acceptance or punish those who refuse to sanction it. That says you want more than equality – you want special rights.
To Heidi: We are forced to do this because it is your side that is pushing your agenda on us and our children. We are only doing what we must to defend it. Imagine if homosexuals had not declared this war on marriage, then all of the money we spent in defending it could be used to feed hungry children.
But thanks to selfish and greedy adult sexual deviants we have to do what we have to do.
John, no one is forcing anything on you. Your life won’t change in the least once all citizens have the right to marry. There’s nothing to “defend”, although I can see the effectiveness of using battle terminology, and acting threatened.
First of all, it is straight people who “declared war” on marriage, by legalizing divorce. That fundamentally redefined marriage, from a lifetime commitment to a “so long as I’m happy” commitment. So let’s be honest about who started redefining marriage.
Second, it is no more selfish or greedy for a gay person to want to marry than for a straight person. The reasons to get married are exactly the same for gay people as they are for straight people.
Third, our nation’s legal system prohibits giving special treatment to some groups, without a rational public purpose in doing so.
“You can’t claim a 10-year-old is not being treated equally when he is denied the right to drive because he isn’t qualified.”
Of course you can! He is being discriminated against because of his age. But the discrimination is valid and constitutional, because he lacks the maturity and judgment to safely operate a motor vehicle. So there’s a valid public purpose in prohibiting a 10 year old from driving: public safety.
What’s the valid public purpose in limiting marriage to only straight couples?
@Sean
If you can think of a valid reason not to force people to say the naked Emperor is “clothed”, then you will also be able to think of a valid reason not to refer to two men as “married”.
@Sean Public safety. And more than just protecting future children from genetic disorders, though that’s enough. It also protects the public in general, even if they are not the ones being created from unethical experiments, to preserve equal natural procreation rights and prioritize health care for existing people over the tantalizing possibility of being able to make a human being from two people of the same sex. It is just a terrible public policy priority, and has a deep negative impact even if it is never actually done, just be being demanded.
To all Ruth Institute marriage supporters: Read carefully the first paragraph in post #6. The one where it says nothing will change with SSM, no one is forcing anything on us, so there is nothing to defend. This is a total lie. How do I know this? I live in Massachusetts and have observed the negative changes with SSM.
(1) SSM was the tool the homosexual activists used to get into the public schools and brianwash and preach their homosexual deathstlye to our children whether we liked it or not. Parents rights were disregarded.
(2) The Massachusetts marriage license now says PartyA and PartyB and not husband and wife thanks to SSM.
(3) If you own a business you have to pay for the homosexuals health care costs. You see, although the homosexuals have the right to practice this unhealthy sex act, the financial burdon was passed onto the rest of us. In other words, they want this sex right but do not want the financial responsibility that comes with it.
(4) Catholic charities and other adoption agencies were forced to close rather than hand over adopted children to same sex couples. These adoption agencies who wanted to let children have a mother and father were forced out of business.
Think I am making this up. Go to the Massresistance website and get the details.
These are some of the greedy and selfish reasons why the homosexuals want SSM. The above actions helps prove the excellent public purpose in man/woman marriage and why not recognizing SSM is rational public policy.
John Noe:
(1) Marriage equality is an end unto itself. No one is “preaching” anything to public school children except perhaps the virtue of acknowledging and respecting the diversity of people who share this country, which just so happens to include gay people and their families. My children also attend public schools and they deserve to be treated equally with respect to learning about families. This means that yes, children will learn that same-sex couples exist and are raising children. This is a reflection of reality, and hiding reality from children in the name of a narrow ideology against gay people will not serve the education of children.
(2) Big deal. Who cares? If this is the kind of thing that keeps you awake at night, I would suggest psychiatric care.
(3) One more reason why this country needs universal health care. But really, when you speak of “this unhealthy sex act,” can we assume that you mean anal sex? Did you know that many heterosexual couples also practice this act? Did you know that most (if not all) lesbians do not engage in such an act? Making the receipt of health insurance dependent on the sexual practices of individuals is invasive and repugnant to the value of privacy. Besides, how would we monitor such a thing (not to mention that not every gay male couple engages in anal sex)? Oh, and that so-called “unhealthy sex act” is perfectly healthy when practiced safely and in the context of a monogamous relationship, yet another reason why gay men especially need marriage–to promote a monogamous lifestyle and to discourage promiscuity.
(4) Catholic Charities made a decision to forego government funding for its adoption services because it refused to treat people equally under the law. Catholic Charities is perfectly free to provide adoption services with its own money, and can discriminate freely so long as it is not receiving goverment funding. Considering that taxpayer money is received from straight and gay alike, it seems pretty fair that we not expect gay people to pay their tax money to organizations that promote and practice discrimination against them. Catholic Charities was not forced out of business. It had exactly two choices: (1) it could continue to provide adoption services, but in a manner that was not discriminatory toward gay people; or (2) it could refuse government funding in the name of its religious principles. It chose option # 2, and then decided that it wouldn’t or couldn’t continue to provide adoption services with its own money. Incidentally, I wonder if it would have had money to continue its adoption program if it hadn’t wasted so much money trying to prevent others from enjoying their constitutional right to equality under the law. In any event, as a taxpayer I should not be forced to finance discrimination against me.
There is nothing greddy or selfish about wanting to marry the person that you love and are willing to commit your life to. There is nothing greedy or selfish about wanting our children to have the best and most stable family environment that can exist.
There is nothing “rational” about government discrimination against LGBT people. In fact, your diatribe just shows how irrational your opposition to equality really is. “Deathstyle?” The belief that gay people are trying to recruit children? Mass hysteria about the downfall of society? Yup, sure sounds rational to me….not.
To Post #11:
The concerns are real and legitimate. Although you may not give a hoot about other people’s feelings and you displayed your self centered attitude for all to see, the damage that was done with SSM in MA are there.
(1) As was pointed out in the Massresistance website, thanks to SSM the homosexual activists have turned the public schools into recruiting grounds into their deathstyle. Not content to just give each other AIDS they have decided that our children are there to be plucked. There have been reports of unaware parents who did not know that the activists have turned their child into a homosexual. Parents want control over their children, and wish to exercise their parental rights. If loving parents in the home are teaching their children morals and why engaging in homosexuality is wrong they do not want the public school undermining their message. Little children who have not even entered puberty are being taught about homosexuality. It is wrong to teach this in the schools. The only place for homosexuality in the public schools is in the health class. There the children need to be taught that this behavior is wrong and unhealthy for you.
(2) I am not surprised that a selfish self centered person like you considers what was done to the license as no big deal. It is for us who love this institution. There were those who framed their licenses on walls and loved the certificate proclaiming them husband and wife. Party A and Party B makes a mockery of what true marriage is all about.
(3) The health issues are real. Thanks to homosexuality our health care costs and insurance have gone up. When businesses were forced to recognize SSM they had to pay the higher costs. Why should the insurance and health care costs come out of my pocket? I always suspected that the reason why homosexuals pooh pah this is because they are taking advantage of the ignorance of straights. Many straights do not know that they are paying for the homosexual deathstyle out of our pockets. If more knew then former voters who voted yes for SSM would change their vote.
Oh and their never is a time when that unhealthy sex act becomes healthy. The anus has soft tissue and any semen in the bloodstream causes sickness and disease. Anal sex is just plain wrong period and no phony fidelity will change that fact. Homosexual sex in any way shape or form is unhealty and perverted.
The concerns of the charities are real. Always putting the needs of vulnerable children first, they understand the need for children to have a mom and dad. They understand how messed up children get being raised in homosexual homes. I just saw anther blog and website from someone who has written a book about the harm she suffered living in a home and being raised by two homosexual men. It is absolutely disgusting that the needs of selfish adult sex desires are put ahead of children. The adoption agencies had every right to demand that all adoptees provide a mom and dad. You do not have a right to children as if they are some form of possesion. They are real human beings and deserve the loving home of a mother and father.
You are being selfish and greedy in redefining marriage. You are being selfish and greedy in putting your sexual desires above the needs of children. The health concerns are real and not mass hysteria. There is no public purpose in having SSM and everything rational about the government in not recogzizing SSM.
“If loving parents in the home are teaching their children morals and why engaging in homosexuality is wrong they do not want the public school undermining their message.”
The government is not your agent in indoctrinating your children in your religious beliefs. That’s why we don’t teach creationism in schools, or other bible stuff. That’s why laws aren’t made based on religious beliefs.
First parents have the right to instill morals into their children and teach right from wrong. There is parental rights and religious people have their rights too. Besides there is more to this than religion. A loving parent does not want their child to engage in risky and unhealthy behaviors. A loving parent would not want their child to get sexually transmitted diseases. So they have every right and parental obligation to teach their children the truth. Homosexuallity is bad and unhealthy for you. This disgusting and perverted conduct leads to sickness and shortness of life.
So yes they do not want the public schools undermining their message. They would be opposed to the homosexual activist lying to their children and telling them how great it is. Just because the homosexual wants AIDS does not mean that the parent wants it for their child also.
I suppose you think its OK, though, if government is an agent that indoctrinates children in your beliefs.
“Not content to just give each other AIDS they have decided that our children are there to be plucked.”
“There have been reports of unaware parents who did not know that the activists have turned their child into a homosexual.”
“Just because the homosexual wants AIDS does not mean that the parent wants it for their child also.”
Thank you Mr. Noe, for displaying the hatred, ignorance and fear that so often accompanies the attitudes of many opposed to marriage equality. It is people like you that I don’t want MY child exposed to in public school!
And I do not want my or somebody else’s children exposed to the homosexual agenda. They deserve normal childhoods and not to be brainwashed into the homosexual cult. That means us loving parents have to do what we can to fix our children from the harm of the homosexual agenda.
The only place for it in the public schools is in the health class. It is there that children can learn that anal sex and homosexual sex is wrong, immoral, and just plain bad for you. The schools should point out that if they engage in this conduct they will have a higher chance at sexually trasnmitted diseases and shorter life expectancy. This is the purpose of health class.
1) You demonstrate so perfectly your bigotry with your words. Deathstyle? Really? You don’t think that just makes you sound kind of silly?
2) And being called Party A or Party B is so very threatening to your own marriage that you must prevent millions of Americans from the opportunity to marry the person of their choice? I cry for the fragility of your marriage.
3) If you own a business you have to pay for your obese employees’ health care costs. “You see, although the fat people have the right to practice this unhealthy dietary act, the financial burden was passed onto the rest of us. In other words, they want this fast food right but do not want the financial responsibility that comes with it.”
4) The children were not adopted, and that was the whole point. The adoption agency refused to place them in the homes of stable, loving, married couples just because the agency didn’t approve of those couples. And for the record, the agency in question had in fact been happily placing children with same-sex couples until the higher-ups at the Boston diocese stepped in and squashed that possibility. And children were hurt because of it.