"... and yet the institution of marriage has absorbed that change quite handily, and has soldiered on."

Really? So the divorce rate has always been 50% (or greater by some estimates)? So there have always been hoard's of single parent families that can't put food on the table, let alone be around to support their children?

You are certainly right that a change in the family dynamic will result in great change, but you assume it is for the good. Look at the rise of the dual household income. Once upon a time families had one parent that made the money, and the other that cared for the children. Then womens lib came around, and women entered the workplace exponentially. This was a good thing, right? Well, I am not against women working, but let's look at the impact the dual income households had. These dual income households resulted in an increase in spending power for a portion of the population. This increase in spending power drove up the cost of homes and goods. As a result, traditional families were forced to go to dual income households just to survive. As a result, children no longer got the attention and support from the family, and educational achievement significantly dropped.

The end result is the greatest income disparity in the history of America. There once was a time when the only dual income households were the poorest households. This allowed even poor Americans to survive in our economy.

So yes, a change in the family dynamic will have repercussions that spread across our economy. However, we should take a close look at what those changes will be. For example, legalized gay marriages will most likely result in an increase in surrogate pregnancies. We know that the best environment for a child is with the biological mother and the biological father. However, gay marriage will force children to be ripped from one of their biological parents. How is that fair to the child? No to mention the fact that we have too many children in foster care already. But hey, what's a few more, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why marry at all?
For love?
Not really. Some unmarried couples look a lot more "in love" than many married ones...
For stability?
Nope, you can divorce anytime...
For money?
Kind of. You save on taxes and one will get a pension for life when divorced.
Because of social pressure, religion, tradition?
Wrong excuse...
For the kids?
Nope. You can raise kids well and not be married.

Now, to come back to the homo/hetero thing.
Between an healthy and friendly homo couple and a sour and aggressive hetero couple... which one is best for the kids?
As a kid, I would choose the happy homos any time!
As a kid, I want love and happiness! I don't care about homo/hetero stupid religious fights...
I will end with a little video.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm all for expanding the definition of marriage to include anything and everything, but only because it's nobody's business.

Seeing trends in marriage, and different people's definition of marriage may be interesting and educational. But it still doesn't change the fact that a marriage is and should be a contract between individuals.

I know the article means well, but it seems to suggest that we use an expanded definition of marriage as a tool to address social problems, expand our minds, etc. That just seems to bring the nosy neighbors and the state back into the marriage business, which we already know is a bad thing.

Good article. Good discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

church. The church set up by Christ. I agree with Ron Paul in that the government has usurped the authority of the church to marry. Lets get the government out of the marriage business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

church. The church set up by Christ. I agree with Ron Paul in that the government has usurped the authority of the church to marry. Lets get the government out of the marriage business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I say let them marry. Why should the law protect gays and lesbians from the misery the rest of us have to endure? Why should they not have to give up half their stuff to an unfaithful "spouse"? Change the law and let 'em strap on the 'ole ball and chain. To my gay and lesbian friends remember the old adage: becareful what you wisf for... :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lajaw is a rightwing consultant, apparently. He has the talking points down, but is not up on history, law or common sense. Typical.

Marriage is NOT a church institution. If it were then ALL marriages across the entire friggin' planet would have to be sanctioned by a church. Let's see. People have been getting married far longer than before the Catholic Church was invented.

In your estimation all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and others are not actually married because they didn't have their union sanctioned by a Christian in some church somewhere.

In the West the definition of marriage was changed over time. It is NOT defined by the church but the church wants to define it today. It is pure politics and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

The mix of religion and politics has caused this problem in the US. In all Western countries where the church has been kicked out of their political process the better off the people are with respect to gay marriage. Netherlands, Columbia, Canada, England, ETC.

Only the US, with it's addiction to mythological religion, has a problem with gay marriage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE THE PEOPLE FOR A SANE WORLD officially declare 100% support for gay marriage, as a civil right and a birthright. Those religious institutions that condemn such partnerships are in flagrant violation of the US Constitution's first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Furthermore, said institutions often encourage attitudes of hatred and promotion of violence against sexual minorities in many other ways, and have a long history of such. And these "godly" organizations remain, as they have for untold centuries, the major and sole cause of virulent homophobia.

Amerika would not tolerate such ugly behavior by a religious group towards any other minority, in our modern day. And it is one important tenet of so-called activist judges, to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. Especially when such a minority is more universally hated than any other; as are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. In fact, as oppressed as many minorities remain, most still cling to backward and hateful notions against even their own non-hetero brethren.

The issue of gay marriage has become a glaring example of dangers that arise when church matters are not kept separate from those of the state. Indeed, it has become The Great Test Of Today's Amerika regarding the issue of individual rights versus majority prejudice. And if we keep moving in that sorry direction much longer, we are likely to see a full-blown holocaust against these long-suffering people.

But progressives of all stripes must also share considerable shame, for sometimes participating in homophobic actions (at worst), or looking the other way too often (at best). To rectify this, we stand with other responsible liberals and moderates, who take up the cause of gay equality starting with marriage, in brave and aggressive manners. Even some churches are finally joining in, thus answering to their savior's message of compassion. I hope this will mark a sea-change in attitude regarding our sexual minorities.

All truly progressive people will not tolerate any more homophobia from our own liberal groups and representatives, and must therefore, if need be, not just condemn but separate ourselves from those who continue to harbor anti-gay attitudes. We must be as clear, as strong, and as steadfast regarding gay marriage, as we have been these many years against racism, misogyny, child abuse, capital punishment, and preemptive declarations of war. For it has become all too obvious that condemnation of gay marriage is a red herring to distract us from the real agenda: removal of all LGBT rights to mark them as second-class citizens in perpetuity. And then, the elimination of all rights for every other citizen, except a remnant of the power elite.

We will no longer tolerate frivolous and mean-sprited arguments questioning whether or not gays can marry, whether or not they deserve equal status as human beings, and whether or not they shall go to heaven. Such debates hold no validity in any civilized nation, as they are founded on a premise that is blatantly erroneous from the start, for it flies in the face of common sense and compassion. Nor shall we ever again engage any discussion over partnerships termed and defined as something resembling marriage, but not ever equal to. In other words "separate and unequal." In short:

Marriage by any other name just doesn't cut the mustard.

--
Ezekiel J. Krahlin
Queer Voice in the Oscar-Wilderness

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know nothing about marriage. But I do know that same-sex marriage will definitely change norms.

Imagine a world where people believe in Sun. Everybody around you believes in what they see during the day and worship it. Then one day, one man says that this is not right, adds that you should worship to the real creator, not the Sun. You laugh at him, however months later many more come with the same idea. You still feel like it's not a good idea so you stick with worshiping Sun.

Then they say that you should be against abortion, because it is a sin. You are ok with that because you believe in a different God now, and you fear that you may get more sin if you don't support anti-abortion.

So years later, everybody around you believe in a different God that replaced yours. And then they say, abortion is a sin and everybody believes that too, because otherwise it is a sin.

Then one day, you get pregnant and doctors tell you that your baby will be disabled, mentally, physically, whatever, which will make you think that your baby will not have a life ahead. He or she will suffer during the entire lifetime, which you don't want. Doctors also tell you that you are very unlucky and this situation is one in a million which means when you get pregnant again, he or she will be healthy.

So you decide to abort your baby but you can't do that because everybody around you believe it is a sin. But you don't believe that because your God is not their God.

In the end, you are forced to give birth and suffer for your entire life along with your baby.

Why? Because millions of people believe abortion is a sin.

Apply this to same-sex marriage and you will get the idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage is about preserving the past in some way. Money, property, social status, a country, etc. Children of a 'marriage' are legitmate and entitled to their inheritance. Women in the past were not allowed to own anything. They had to marry. Not any more. That alone is a major change. Most of the reasons to marry are practical. Love and the search for happiness came later. So same sex marriage is a contract with certain privileges. Mostly financial. It's the love and sex part of it that bothers people. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead of extending legal marriage to same sex couples, let's go the other way and abolish marriage altogether as a legal category. I don't think it should be the government's place to define, regulate, or promote any particular type of intimate personal relationship between consenting adults. Let people have wedding ceremonies, if they wish, to publicly announce their relationship to family and friends, but there shouldn't be any need to inform the government about it as well.

Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but I don't want to register my personal relationships with a license like I have to get a license to drive a car.

Some will point out that legal marriage bestows many legal rights and benefits currently unavailable to those in non-legal relationships of various forms. Such rights are those that mainly involve practical benefits for those sharing a household, such as filing joint taxes, eligibility to be carried on the other's health insurance, next-of-kin rights and so on.

Instead of marriage or civil union, both predicated on a sexual relationship, the government could legalize domestic partnerships that would focus solely on the strictly practical rights and benefits that are related to sharing a household. Any sexual relationships that might exist alongside it, would be entirely irrelevant to the terms of the Domestic Partnership.

In addition to those in long term marriages or marriage-clone relationships, gay and straight, Domestic Partnerships could include adult siblings sharing a household, an adult child and elderly parent(s)sharing a home, two platonic friends living together, someone caring for a disabled family member, and other non-sexual households.

In other words, the Domestic Partnership benefits package would be a Family Benefits thing, no longer synonymous with marriage, nor defining what a marriage is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a great indy movie making the rounds these days, Inlaws & Outlaws. If ever there were a love story told in documentary form, this is it. Many people are interviewed about their views of marriage and relationship - straight, gay, male, female, young, old, married, single. For me it is a brilliant look at what defines a loving, commited marriage. I walked away intensely more commited to mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]