tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post110081703264197590..comments2024-03-27T07:18:39.229-05:00Comments on In Medias Res: Marriage and Social PolicyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1166196286133897542006-12-15T09:24:00.000-06:002006-12-15T09:24:00.000-06:00It is a kind of contract that is freely entered in...It is a kind of contract that is freely entered into my any who are of age. But on the other hand, the legally-created right to such a contract results in a social insitution intended to serve certain ends. Proponents of SSM cite only the first aspect when explaining why SSM must be granted, and why opposition to SSM amounts to bigotry. But then they use primarily the second aspect to beat heterosexuals over the head for their high divorce rates. If marriage were only an <A HREF="http://expertbiz.org" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">individual right</A>  belonging to all adults, wherein the government had no business trying to steer it toward certain uses, it would make no sense to worry about divorce rates in political discussions. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://expertbiz.org" REL="nofollow" TITLE="makylatyra at yahoo dot com">Scott Brison</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1100914134258196722004-11-19T19:28:00.000-06:002004-11-19T19:28:00.000-06:00Sorry, DJW, if you thought the post was directed a...Sorry, DJW, if you thought the post was directed at your comments. They were tangential to the main issue, I know. I wasn't directly disagreeing with anyone on the thread, but commenting on some things that had been alluded to in Russell's post and your post. Russell mentioned the charge of hypocrisy, but did not accuse anyone of it. And, I admit, you accused no one of bigotry.<br /><br />Perhaps you, Russell and many other people are weary of SSM debates. I know that they used to be an almost daily event over at Times and Seasons. I never got involved in them, mainly because of some of the excesses I describe above. So while I'm not sure of what position I want to take at this point, I don't have the same weariness. At any rate, sorry for veering off-topic. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Finmedias.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fmarriage-and-social-policy.html%23comments" TITLE="jjohn at nd dot edu">Jeremiah J.</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1100905306816741642004-11-19T17:01:00.000-06:002004-11-19T17:01:00.000-06:00Jeremiah, I don't think it would be appropriate fo...Jeremiah, I don't think it would be appropriate for you and I to turn this thread into a debate on SSM, since it is not the topic of RAF's post. I only brought up the issue in the limited context of observing that for a (very small, admittedly) group of straight people, of which I am a member, the discriminatory nature of marriage laws serve as a disincentive to participate in the institution. I don't think this discrimination is justifable; you do. That's an argument for another time and place (email me if you're dying to have it out).<br /><br />Other than that, I'll only note that it's a bit odd that you'd choose to begin your post with a discussion of the overuse and abuse of the term "hypocrisy" (I don't disagree) when no one else has used that term in this thread. Certainly, I think you can hold a wide range of views on SSM and divorce laws without being a hypocrite. I can't see how that could be inferred from my post, or Hektor's.<br /><br />Nor has anyone used the term bigotry, for that matter. It's unclear who or what in this thread your post is responding to. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?lefarkins.blogspot.com" TITLE="david at tennishockey dot com">DJW</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1100903984208244922004-11-19T16:39:00.000-06:002004-11-19T16:39:00.000-06:00The term 'hypocrisy' is one of the most ill-used a...The term 'hypocrisy' is one of the most ill-used and overused terms in political discourse. Am I a hypocrite if I am against SSM while those who share my sexual orientation get divorced at rates which some consider too high? Or is it only hypocrisy if I live in a red state? Perhaps I think that there should be no SSM, but that the current divorce law is not in need of changes, because divorce is so rarely contemplated without cause that making it harder would cause abused spouses to remain in marriage to an unacceptable degree. Perhaps I am wrong about this assessment. Does my faulty reasoning or misperception of the social facts make me a hypocrite? <br /><br />Besides the incoherence of the hypocrisy (or somewhat more sensibly, the inconsistency) charge against opponents of same-sex marriage, the discussion on both sides fails to come to terms with the basic meaning of marriage. On the one hand it is a kind of contract that is freely entered into my any who are of age. But on the other hand, the legally-created right to such a contract results in a social insitution intended to serve certain ends. Proponents of SSM cite only the first aspect when explaining why SSM must be granted, and why opposition to SSM amounts to bigotry. But then they use primarily the second aspect to beat heterosexuals over the head for their high divorce rates. If marriage were only an individual right belonging to all adults, wherein the government had no business trying to steer it toward certain uses, it would make no sense to worry about divorce rates in political discussions. If marriage were only an individual right to "the mutual use of sexual organs" it would make as much sense to decry divorce rates as it would to worry about the buyout of work contracts from NBA players. Perhaps the social facts will indicate that SSM will not hurt the goals we have in mind when we ask the government to issue marriage licenses. But disagreement on this issue does not necessarily constitute bigotry, and using a legally granted right to promote legitimate social goals is not the same as unjust discrimination. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Finmedias.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fmarriage-and-social-policy.html%23comments" TITLE="jjohn at nd dot edu">Jeremiah J.</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1100897422660418122004-11-19T14:50:00.000-06:002004-11-19T14:50:00.000-06:00I see thing rather similarly to Hektor. The age at...I see thing rather similarly to Hektor. The age at marriage shows a strong correlation to staying together, right? Let's encourage and facilitate a social environment where young adults are encouraged to establish their independent personalities and lives--socially and economically--before they make a lifelong commitment. This would be a way of strengthening marriage that wouldn't make it harder for marginalized, disconnected women in abusive and destructive marriages to get out. The specific content of the form of patriachy that pervades many such marriages can make it quite difficult to get out, even with no-fault divorce laws. I must say I find it a bit disheartening that this obvious cost to higher hurdles for divorce doesn't merit a mention in your discussion here.<br /><br />For some of us, though, the best thing that could be done to strengthen and encourage marriage is to stop using it as a tool for discrimation. I'd no sooner participate in state-sponsored marriage right now than I would patronize a whites-only country club, and I have many acquaintances who feel the same way. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?lefarkins.blogspot.com" TITLE="david at tennishockey dot com">DJW</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1100889400632276092004-11-19T12:36:00.000-06:002004-11-19T12:36:00.000-06:00Jobs are more important than marriage. Child care...Jobs are more important than marriage. Child care is more important than marriage. Health care is more important than marriage.<br /><br />Until people start working seriously to provide these to people, I can't take all the talk about marriage very seriously. If women can't get jobs, child care, and health care from men, then they don't need them and won't get married. Simple as that.<br /><br />Also, making marriage harder to get out of means that fewer people get married. While this might be a good thing in a benighted place like Arkansas where people marry very young without knowing what they are getting into, I can't see it as very useful in a place like Massachusetts, which has very low levels of divorce. In fact, if you make divorce very hard, you just get cohabitation - see Ireland and Chile for good examples. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Finmedias.blogspot.com%2F2004%2F11%2Fmarriage-and-social-policy.html%23comments" TITLE="hkbim at comcast dot net">Hektor Bim</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7907752.post-1100828453201434742004-11-18T19:40:00.000-06:002004-11-18T19:40:00.000-06:00If I've got it right from the article, "covenant m...If I've got it right from the article, "covenant marriage" is to marriage is to domestic partnership what Guinness is to ale is to Coors Lite - an option for those who prefer a greater amount of legally binding contract in their lives. I do find state interference in family structure distasteful (when I don't find it completely outside the government's legitimate purview) but as long as Governor Huckabee's agenda doesn't include extra rights or privileges for covenant couples, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be upset. <br /><br />This seems to me to be a step towards the death of traditional one-size-fits-all state-sponsored marriage. While I'm all in favor of that, I'm surprised that it's gained the support of so many social conservatives. <br /><br /><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fgreengabbro.net%2F" TITLE="">yami</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com