Some opponents of same-sex marriage (SSM) say that marriage as a traditional institution of one man and one woman needs to be defended. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to that effect, though his grasp of the concept of marriage as an exclusive relationship proved to be faulty.
Defending marriage sounds great as a concept: more people should be married and they should stay married longer. That’s consistent with allowing same-sex couples to get married: get married, and stay married.
The real enemy of marriage isn’t more people getting married, it’s more people getting divorced. Fewer people would get divorced if more people married more selectively than they apparently do now. (Britney Spears may have been carrying a license made out in blank.)
So let’s take an idea that my Republican friends assure me works, and import it to marriage. I’m thinking of the three-strikes law for repeat criminal offenders. Straight, gay, pan, bestial, appliance-oriented — whatever your taste may be, you get three marriages. No more. Three strikes, no spares.
Too harsh? Then let the fourth-timers have a “civil union,” which can be almost like marriage, but announces their second-class status in the world of relationships.
Now that’s what I call defending marriage.
Comments
One response
Good points.
But the underlying problem is the common understanding of the word “marriage” is infused with too many societal values and expectations.
We may understand the difference between legal “marriage” (a contract) and the cultural/religous understanding of “marriage” (a value-laden rite generally involving social approval), but the majority of folks do not make that distinction.
Views will change and sharpen over time, but forcing them down people’s throats will only lead to distrust of the political institutions who have put themselves in charge of the “cultural revolution”.
The simple solution is for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions for all competent adults. Marriages can be solemnized by churches, secular organizations, Capt. Stuebing, etc.
The conservatives will accept this proposal (hell Lars Larson says he thinks its the best approach). They like it because they do not want the government putting its imprimatur upon actions they find morally repugnant. If the government washes it hands of marriage, they are free to complain to each other about those “damn P.C. Episcopalians”.
The real question is whether this sort of solution will be good enough for gay activists. Are they willing to acquire equal rights now if it requires abandoning their attempt to have the government redefine marriage for everyone?