Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Who's to Blame for the Decline of Marriage?

By Julie Enszer, AlterNet. Posted November 15, 2006.


Don't look at gay and lesbian couples. Look at the people who want to exclude them.
Advertisement

This piece originally appeared as an op-ed in the Washington Blade.

The milestone court decision from New Jersey paves the way for another state to recognize gay and lesbian relationships. The decision hinges on the effect of naming -- do we call it marriage or not? -- but still requires that the state extend all the rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

I spent the better part of the next day telling my beloved that this doesn't clear the way for us to move to Jersey. She laughed. We feel certain that the moment is coming for Maryland so we won't have to move. I wonder, though, if what we are seeing right now is not the entry of gay and lesbian couples into the system of marriage, but the end of marriage as an institution completely?

Don't misunderstand. I don't think that gays and lesbians will be responsible for the end of marriage, but I do think the actions by some to exclude gays and lesbians from the institution foreshadows its death.

Societal institutions at the height of their power are flexible and inclusive. If others want to join, the institution can easily absorb and "normalize" people into it. Powerful institutions welcome newcomers; they want people to participate in them to strengthen their influence and impact.

Powerful institutions in our society have included our system of public education, our system of transportation--including roads, railroads, subway systems and so on -- the programs of the New Deal and many cultural institutions including television, movies and popular music. Powerful societal institutions are not like private clubs that seek to exclude to build their cache. Powerful societal institutions are invested in building power and access for all Americans, not in limiting engagement to a select few.

When institutions are waning in their power, however, they become exclusive. Instead of an expansive vision, they narrow their outlook and seek primarily to exclude rather than include. This is what right-wing extremists are doing to the institution of marriage.

The drive to exclusivity to preserve marriage only for heterosexual people ultimately works to ensure that marriage as an institution declines.

The end of marriage won't be the fault of gays and lesbians -- many of us want desperately to be a part of the institution, believing it is of value but also believing we have something to offer it to help make it a more vibrant and important institution. But it seems certain that if political discourse proceeds as it has, gays and lesbians will be blamed for its demise.

It won't matter, however, because when the blaming begins, the end is already in sight. We've witnessed many dramatic changes in family structure -- recently, couples having fewer children and more children growing up without two married parents. These changes have been blamed variously on single mothers, welfare, feminists, no-fault divorce and Paganism.

If what we are witnessing is the end of marriage, does it matter? Certainly. The end of marriage will mean that we will have an opportunity to reorganize how we form our social and familial lives. Gays and lesbians who have the history of doing this outside of sanctioned structures will be able to model effective systems of "families by choice." Instead of seeking to "get into" an institution perhaps not fully situated to accommodate our needs, we will be able to help shape a new institution that is responsive to us and our system of kinship.

And if I'm wrong? What if it isn't the end of marriage? What if marriage rallies and either sustains its significance or increases? At least then marriage will mean something different when gays and lesbians are part of it.

That transformation will be an exciting and important one. Most importantly, though, when we are on the inside of marriage, may we remember the lessons of being excluded and may we work to build vibrant societal institutions that are based on inclusive principles. May our history be allied with Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of reaching for justice.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: marriage, gay rights, gay marriage

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
prejudiced
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 15, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Letting predjudiced people decide whether alternate couples can be married is like approving of the Bushie's decision to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in a criminal war: it is an immoral crime. Criminal minds do the strangest things.

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

» RE: prejudiced Posted by: willymack
Lawyers are causing the death of marriage.
Posted by: colinmeister on Nov 15, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Homosexuals and lesbians are not a problem with marriage. The big problem with marriage is that too many marriages are ending in divorce, with lawyers circling like vultures waiting to pick up the financial carrion.

People are finally coming to grips with the idea that getting married is maybe not such a wise economic decision. With both partners working, insurance is usually not an issue, so why not just cohabit with an informal arrangement, so if it all goes wrong there is no need to involve predatory attornies?

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

Actually, "conservatives" have passed all sorts of rules to "control" traditionally married couples
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 15, 2006 3:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT alone will be responsible for the DEATH of marriage.

As Paul Campos himself pointed out,

Hence we'll soon be a nation in which the rich gay married couples will pay no estate taxes.

Sad, that culture cons and culture libs can make strange bedfellows when it comes to uniting to give working couples the MIDDLE FINGER !

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

» Propaganda.... Posted by: CatDad
It's Discrimination with a capital "D"
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 15, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discrimination against homosexuals is one of the last "acceptable" forms of bigotry in the United States of America.

Substitute "black" for "homosexual" or "gay" into any recent published rant against gay marriage and the blatant bigotry of such opponents becomes disgustingly apparent.

Now, there was a time in the United States when such things as interracial marriage (and even the common practice of birth control!) were absolutely forbidden by local or state laws. However, most of us would not even THINK about publicly supporting such blatantly discriminatory government edicts regarding one's personal or private behavior today.

The vast majority of us also firmly believe that, as long as it we aren't committing a crime in the process (like rape, pedophilia or incest) what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms is none of the government's damn business.

Yet now, hoards of Bible-thumping hypocrites are frantically petitioning governments at all levels to prevent ordinary people who do EXACTLY the same things other married couples do OUTSIDE their bedrooms from having all the same societal benefits that they, themselves, enjoy from the state-sanctioned institution of marriage.

If that isn't blatant discrimination with a capital "D", I don't know what is!

Now, certainly, no Church or other religious organization should be forced into performing any form of union between two people that it believes is fundamentally against its doctrine or principles. But, on the other hand, the Bible-thumpers should also keep their big noses OUT of something that has historically been…and clearly remains… an institution of the State…not the Church.

Using this same fundamental principle of separation of Church and State, a growing list of other countries in the world (like Canada, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands) have now made homosexual marriage legal under the "equal opportunity" provisions of their Constitutions.

And their sky has yet to fall.

In fact, at least in Canada, marriage hasn't been nearly as popular as simply living together has now become. That is, in Canada, an ever-growing percentage of couples are simply electing the "common law" approach which says that if they live together for a year, then community property laws kick in and, for all intents and purposes, they are considered to be legally "married" by the State by default.

Precisely BECAUSE marriage remains a State-sponsored (vice a purely religious) institution, I firmly predict that in 5 or 10 years' time (and just as it has outlawed other blatant forms of discrimination against other minorities) state and federal courts will once again firmly uphold the "equal treatment" provisions written into our various federal and state constitutions as it applies to marriage…regardless of the sexual orientation of the persons entering into it.

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

» South Africa Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: South Africa Posted by: bronx_girl
» RE: South Africa Posted by: BlueTigress
Not good.
Posted by: BJT on Nov 15, 2006 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think government has any place in deciding what marriage is or isn't. I don't think government has any right to grant "license" for marriage. My marriage was under God, not by the permission of the State.

Government's involvement in marriage is in my opinion a huge factor in the desecration of this sacred institution. The government has also given us a monetary system based on infinite credit, which has bred an attitude of impatience, entitlement, and the death of the principle of delayed gratification among Americans. This moral decline has obviously had an impact on marriages too.

Let's get government out of our marriages completely. I doubt, of course, that the government will like this. I even doubt that the leftists will like it, because government-controlled marriage is a large part of tracking and making chattel of every living American. When the State owns your marriage it can own your children, and when it owns your children it owns everything. I know "own" is kind of a strong word, but it's the only one that fits when the government claims all sorts of rights over you.

The State needs to own everything. Unless it does, the leftists can't fund the nanny state and the right-wingers can't fund the imperial state. This is, again in my opinion, the fundamental reason State marriage persists.

Did George Washington need a marriage license?

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

» RE: Not good. Posted by: kelt65
» totally agreed Posted by: deborama
» RE: Not good. Posted by: fork
» You've lost the issue. Posted by: buffeliscious
abolish civil marriage
Posted by: elf on Nov 15, 2006 5:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is one of separation of church and state. Marriage is a sacrament in most churches. Their should be no place for the state in a church sacrament.

In addition, marriage has always been a relationship of unequal power, with property rights to both the female spouse and the progeny resting upon the male spouse, and disenfranchisement of the property in marital decisions, both social and economic. This is a horrible model for long-term relationships. Relationships are healthy when those involved have equal power.

The church is not an equal power institution, thus it wishes to maintain unequal power relationships like priesthood and marriage. So marriage fits fine into the church structure and can stay there just fine for those who wish to commit to being unequal in their relationships.

But the USA is premised upon equal status and rights for all - well, it pays lip and sometimes actual service to that principal. So marriage is inappropriate for the state.

Unfortunately we have a very long legal structure history with civil marriage - one which is unique and brings real monetary benefits to those who agree to be married civilly. Those rights are what same gender couples wish to share, and the church, being committed to unequal power relationships philosophically, wish to deprive those couples of those rights.

In order to free the state from "marriage" we need to both create a unique partnership type for long-term committed relationships contracted between consenting adults and port the priviledges of civil marriage over to that new partnership type. Once that is completed on the federal and state levels we can then abolish civil marriage.

Once we abolish civil marriage the conservative church is emasculated, its arguments have no basis except within its separate communities. The church can restruct whoever it marries to whomever it wishes but those marriages bring no civil advantages and have no effect on the civil partnership law.

If those who wish to form long-term civil partnerships have to confront the word "partnership" as part of the process I believe the resulting contracts will be strengthened over the current model. The relationships may last longer and begin with a clearer understanding of what is involved as well.

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

Marriage is neither good nor bad, and can't be destroyed
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 15, 2006 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage is a contract, a concept, or an agreement based on a relationship. The state may try to monopolize it, regulate it, formalize it, deny people benefits...but fundamentally, it's none of their business--or anybody's--except for the people being married.

We can't just collectively declare marriage to be dead or alive. That's why this marriage debate--though interesting and amusing--is meaningless.

Marriage may work for you, or not. Why should my neighbor's marriage have anything to do with mine?

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

It's a contract
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Nov 15, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is separation of church and state - or actually, the lack thereof. Marriage is the only institution I can think of in America in which religion and a legal contract are combined. Why are ministers and other church leaders allowed to preside over a legal agreement that carries with it financial consequences? If a couple wish to get married and make it a religious ceremony, let them do it, but keep the legal issues out of it. Don't attach tax breaks, right to inherit, child custody, or any of the other benefits (or drawbacks) to the religious part. Once two people contract with each other in a civil union, they should also be permitted to decide upon the terms of their agreement. Many (although not all, I realize) issues can be agreed upon.

The joining of a couple in a financial partnership should be a civil matter like any other contract. When I got married by a judge, he actually emphasized that my husband and I were entering into a legal contract with all its ramifications. We then drew up a will - another legal contract. We never had a religious ceremony, although we did have what we both consider to be our "real" wedding a few days later with friends, relatives, and acquaintances in which anyone who wished to do so could get up and wish us well, read a poem, sing a song, or (as some did) even read passages from the Bible. It was spiritual but far from a religious ceremony. (Go ahead, anyone who wants to and nitpick about my use of the word "spiritual" as opposed to "religous.")

That was over 13 years ago, and it's better than ever. Every year we have a huge anniversary party that lasts for at least three days, and each year we celebrate with food, song, and renewed energy. Any time my husband is in a room with a group of other people, I still see him in color and everyone else in black and white. But if that ever went away, it would take a LEGAL NOT RELIGIOUS act to separate us.

The notion that throughout history, marriage has always always always been between one man and one woman is fallacious. There have been harems, societies in which all the women and all the men live separately from the other gender and only get to gether for procreation, there have even been societies in which there are no real marriage commitments of any kind. In the Bible, men had more than one wife - so how do the religious scholars justify their insistence on one man, one woman as the only historical model?

Gays and lesbians should be permitted to join in civil unions or whatever else the legal contract is called, and marriage should be relegated to churches, family ceremonies, going out in a field at night and making a committment, or any other religious or spiritual rites people choose to engage in.

Religious committments and legal committments should be two separate entities.

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

» RE: It's a contract Posted by: Mamarianne
» RE: It's a contract Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: It's a contract Posted by: MatthewSavage
Lisa in Pensacola, Florida
Posted by: lisaisalefty on Nov 15, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has been my opinion for a long time now that the only thing threatening the institution of marriage is divorce, and with a more than 50% divorce rate (by heterosexuals) in this country, the neo-cons are probably more concerned with the fact that that percentage would GO DOWN by allowing homosexual couples to marry. They feel threatened, the little cowards!

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

Be careful what you wish for
Posted by: jwg on Nov 15, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been married twice as an institution it is not all that it is cracked up to be, less sex, more responsebilty. Plus it is hard to get out of, which has a tendency to raise the murder index.

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

Transforming our core institutions
Posted by: A-Junky on Nov 15, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I see as one of the most significant aspects of this story has less to do with the actual content of the story (gays and their attempt to participate in the institution of marriage) and more to do with the implications of the authors insights. If, as the author indicates, marriage as we know it is disappearing, this opens up a significant cultural space. The institution has acted for a very long time as one of the cultural code systems for defining, determining and delimiting appropriate human behavior. Marriage, as presently defined, acts as a cultural signifier regarding appropriate gender performance and status relationships. Depending on where one stands with regard to present social patterns (pro or con), the demise of this institution may well signal the battle ground (site of cultural struggle) for the near future. Do we retrench and attempt to re-iterate past institutional patterns which have defined life in advanced modernist social systems or do we embrace and engage the potential of this new cultural space.

If conservatives see marriage as the battle line in this cultural struggle, one can easily see why it's defense becomes so important. Interestingly, one strategy they could use in order to maintain the properties of the system is exactly what the author points out, coop the antagonist by bringing them into the system and allowing them to share power. In so doing the powerful at least maintain the pattern of institutional relationships which have upheld the dominant order for so long. It seems to me that the author quite correctly points out that by taking the stand that they (cons) are, they are making the institution less resilient and thus, more open to demise. If large parts of the population are dis-allowed entry into the institution it is in their best interest to one, formulate a new and different but parallel form (civil union) or two, fully revolutionize the system toward a wholly different pattern of behavior (remove the concept of marriage as a core meaning element of the system). The post-modern context is very different from times gone by and if the dominant cultural systems can't bend and flex to fit the present set of conditions and cultural constructions they will, by necessity fall to the wayside.

Now the question is, how do we use this oportunity to formulate new and better systems of expressing human behavior. This is a very political process, although not in the same sense that many on this site define as such. Although not of the specifically normative form of dem. vs rep., issues such as this are of utmost importance in the unfolding context of human life experiences.

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

Lions and Tigers and Bears
Posted by: NowhereToTurn on Nov 15, 2006 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With increasing economic autonomy, females have become financially independent, no longer requiring a male to provide for them. They neither need a male to have a comfortable life, nor are they compelled to remain in a marriage they find unsatisfactory. (If you're barefoot and pregnant, you ain't goin' nowhere). Women don't even require physical protection from lions and tigers and bears. In our modern technological society, women do not need marriage anymore. It is a matter of choice, and women are simply choosing otherwise.

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

Well here is an opinion of a Christian,
Posted by: MSTHOM on Nov 15, 2006 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes I am Christian, so you might like my opinion and you may not but her it goes.

First the background to my opinion:

Marriage is a principle that has many roots in religion, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Catholic, or otherwise, and many of them se homosexuality as a sin. And yes, I too feel it is a sin, but that is between you and whomever you believe in. My Faith teaches me to treat all people equally.

If a same sex couple wants to be married, I am ok with it. Under one understanding, I don't feel that it would be in line with many church values, so the cerimony or any other marital function that would happen in a church, should NOT be performed in the church.

While it is up to the churches discretion at the moment to decide who can be married on their premises, I feel that sometime in my life span, I will see or hear of a lawsuit charging discrimination against a church that will not agree to the unification being held on the church grounds. This is a concern that I have. Much like many gays and lesbians feel that the church is invading their homes and dictating to them how life is to be lived (I don't feel that that is the churches role.) I feel that the ground work is being laid to open up churches to legal attacks based on discrimination.

There are no cases that I have heard of yet involving this issue, but it would be a stretch to say that it would never happen. Like I said, I just see this issue moving from one stage to the next.

While my point may seem very vague and obscure, but I will try to clarify in a summary,

If gays/lesbians want to marry, go for it and may you be happy.
Enjoy the state and federal given rights like Healthcare, Insurance, Survivor benifits.
May you raise children in a loving home and in turn, help them to be loving, caring adults.

Just please, do not make your cause into a religion issue. If the church doesn't accept it, let them be.

TO REITERATE,

This has not happend that I know of, but I can see that it is a possibility in the near future.

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

» No lawsuits forthcoming Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: No lawsuits forthcoming Posted by: MSTHOM
Gays: run away while you still can
Posted by: pomes on Nov 15, 2006 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to do something about divorce laws, or just give up on the institution of marriage as a whole. I think marriage (more particularly the way it more and more frequently ends) in this country has become a frankenstein's monster, and the ultimate foot in the door for the state (and your ex, and her future lover[s]) to control your life. I don't know why gays and lesbians are so eager to get in on this nightmare.

I've always thought one of the reasons there is so much resistance to gay marriage is the fact that courts need to know in any given case who the victim is (the woman) and who the villian is (the man), and same-sex couples just destroys this "beautiful" legal dichotomy. (Tongue half in cheek here.)

I think traveling down the current path we are on, marriage will simply be opted out of by more and more sane couples. Skip the pre-nuptial agreements.. and skip the nuptials while you're at it.

Can I get an AMEN from all the feminists out there who don't need no stinkin' alimony check from no stinkin' male?!?!

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

» RE: Gays: run away while you still can Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Who Needs It?
Posted by: edhowes on Nov 15, 2006 11:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Very interesting and well expressed viewpoints here. Clearly the state has an interest in establishing the paternity of children in anything but a socialist state, where all adults look to the welfare of children. Yet experience has taught us, not all adults can be entrusted to do right by children. In fact, most are grandparents before they have a clue what might be best for children.

If we care about what kind of adults society produces, we all have a stake in parenting but the state has fallen down on the job to such an extent, state sanctions are meaningless and only serve to discriminate against unmarried people.

Common law, which has been effectively jettisoned by corporate and admiralty law recognized unsanctioned couples as married after seven years of cohabitation and if common law was honored by the state, it would apply equally to samesex couples. That is, Bible thumpers to the contrary, ancient custom provides legal status, not statute law.

It is now much less in state interests to establish paternity and therefore, parental liabilities so long as one responsible parent remains. The state has never had a problem with creating widows, after all. We have ended discrimination when we do not subsidize married behaviors to the exclusion of those who prefer being independent legal entities. Even a house guest knows there are unspoken rules to which behavior must conform to maintain welcome. If any two people are concerned about division of property or even child custody, they are free to contract accordingly. Marriage is just another name for an exclusionary auto contract. How many married people today are honoring their own vows, their personal contracts?

This is an age of lawlessness. We are surrounded by it. No more laws of war. Little enforcement of laws against theft, genocide, immigration and the list goes on. It is time to bring marriage into the lawless age as well and see if any decent adults will come of it.

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

» RE: Who Needs It? Posted by: pomes
» RE: Who Needs It? Posted by: Landbaron
I welcome the demise of marriage
Posted by: scryberwitch on Nov 15, 2006 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Call me a radical, but I think this institution called "marriage" should fall by the wayside, along with all of history's bad systems like slavery and patriarchy (not that it's fallen yet, but it's on its way). Why should the church or the state either one have any say in the relationships of adult citizens? Why do we still cling to the patriarchal idea that we need to "assure the paternal lineage" of children?
I say we go back to the old (really old) ways. People form whatever relationship - in twos, or threes, or whatever combination suits all parties - they choose. Children, naturally, would trace their lineage through their mother's line. Relationships could form and dissolve as the people involved wish - no state interference or regulation, no church decrees (unless you *choose* to follow a specific church's dogma). It's easy. It's natural.
What's so wrong with this system?

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

» Let's Not Go Overboard.... Posted by: CatDad
Wait, marriage is good for something!
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 15, 2006 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's an excellent way for somone who's very ill to get free medical care with no prior health or insurance questions.
We don't need Universal Healthcare after all!

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

the FakeLeft just LOVES those social wedge issues. And the overclass loves the fakeLeft!
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature on Nov 15, 2006 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Marriage, gay rights, la dee dah.....who care 'bout all dat "uni-ver-sahl healt'care" or dat "pro-gress-ive tach-say-shun"?

Not us, say da Big Bad FakeLeft. We jus' care 'bout social wedge issues. Cuz our rich overclass masters won't pay that fat nonprofit grant if we write 'bout economics issues applied to the working classes as a unit. Nope, gotta divide 'em up and rule 'em....

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

» We're not the Borg Posted by: YogiBear
On marriage
Posted by: toolband on Nov 15, 2006 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A relationship should maintain or dissolve itself of it's own volition. It should not be motivated or manipulated by external institutions such as government or church. Marriage proponents might argue that the barrier to separation that marriage creates is useful in "cementing the relationship" More often than not, this cements people into an unhappy situation OR it makes disolving the relationship more costly and painful than it already is.

It could be argued that w/o marriage it is much too easy to end a relationship. I think this is a actually good thing. It serves as a reinforcement to treat someone you want to maintain a relationship with, in a way that would encourage them to maintain the relationship rather than dissolve it.

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

Who's to blame?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Nov 15, 2006 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I doubt that any single thing can account for it. There are a lot of possible factors. Here are six off the cuff:

1) Acceptance of cohabitation.
2) Skyrocketing divorce as a deterrent.
3) Many are just too busy at work.
4) Shutting down the workplace as a place to find a wife due to sexual harrassment laws.
5) Feminism has moved women out into the workforce, making them less dependent on men.
6) Feminism has subdued some feminine traits in women that have always appealed to men, turning them into competitors rather than companions.

No doubt there are others as well.

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

» RE: You like to scapegoat feminism Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Who's to blame? Posted by: fork
» RE: Who's to blame? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Who's to blame? Posted by: fork
» #7 Posted by: CatDad
» RE: #7 Posted by: fork
» RE: #7 Posted by: MSTHOM
More bullet points of blame
Posted by: pomes on Nov 15, 2006 3:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like this list, let me add a few more:

* Feminism moving women out into the workforce is only part of it. Feminism has also made divorce a very profitable venture for women. Women don't often get divorced so they can launch a career -- usually they collect alimony. With divorce law being what it is, women have a huge financial incentive to get divorced. They can still be dependent on their husband's money while doing away with his annoying presence and the difficulty that brings to her having other lovers as part of accepting that money.

* The economy is in the shitter. Being broke adds stress to any relationship. Plus it makes the financial incentive outlined above all the more attractive.

* More acceptable now to live outside social norms in general, not everyone needs the car, picket fence, and 2.2 children.

* Public figures (celebrities, politicians, the "role models" of far too many people) marry and divorce very publically, and very often.

* Our advertising culture promotes quick-fixes, selfishness, and instant gratification at the expense of mutual sacrifice, consensus, and long-term planning.

* Though there are backlashes and backslides, the general direction has been moving away from having our life ruled by religious superstitions and customs. Though the debate is raging on this forum, most people still see marriage as largely religious in nature.

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

» RE: More bullet points of blame Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: More bullet points of blame Posted by: Landbaron
institutions
Posted by: owleyes on Nov 15, 2006 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that institutions are flexible when powerful but rigid when weakened is really interesting. I wish that this author had included a reference to a book or something so I could see the methodology by which that idea derived. It's probably common knowledge among people who have studied sociology, but I haven't.

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

» RE: institutions Posted by: toolband
Said It Before
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 15, 2006 10:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
& I'll Say It Again

Marriage is of the state (generic meaning)- not the church or any other faith group. When a pastor/preist/rabbi marries a couple they say 'by the power vested in me by the state of ****...' not by the power of the church.

Holy Matrimony is an ordinance of the Church. A civil ceremony is not Holy Matrimony and can only be conferred by the church.

One is a subset of the other. The are not one and the same. If a government sees fit to sanction marriage between same sex couples it in no way violates the ordinance of the church. It's a non-issue.

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

» RE: Said It Before Posted by: YogiBear
Weddings suck.
Posted by: terihu on Nov 16, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After nearly 20 years of cohabitation, I have to say, one of the top reasons I had for eschewing the institution was wedding pressure. Every time I tried to imagine our wedding, I would become tense and anxious, thinking of all the things that could go wrong, the arguments with my family over petty details, conflicts in planning. It was terrifying.

I've watched dozens of friends, relatives and colleagues negotiate the "happiest day" of their lives and for most of them, it was stressful and dissappointing. Many expressed a desire to just "get it over with" by the time the big day finally rolled around.

If the wedding becomes simply a way for middle class parents to show off their "successful" offspring, and stops being fun for the couple, then what is the point?

Weddings have turned into a multi-million (maybe even billion) dollar industry instead of a warm, intimate celebration of a couple embarking on a life together. I would hope some of this marriage dip is because clear thinking people are starting to reject these gaudy displays of materialist culture and defining marriage for themselves.

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

I can just see the homophobes
Posted by: Cathyblj on Nov 16, 2006 3:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
saying, "Hell, if the queers can do it now, I sure ain't gonna do it!" So it's all their fault for trying to get all the benefits.

Seriously, since gays and lesbians are just as capable of being loving, competent parents, and they pay just as much in taxes, there is no reason to deny them the full benefits (as well as problems) of marriage. In fact, they seem to often be more loving than straight couples. Denying them liberty and the persuit of happiness is blatant bigotry.

Speaking of bigotry, will it ever be possible to read the comments of an AlterNet article (which in any way mentions women) without all the misogynists coming out of the woodwork?

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

Why was marriage invented?
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 17, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To keep track who's responsible for the offspring?

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

Marriage is manipulated by the government
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 19, 2006 12:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch; "Sex in history", marriage was on the decline until Augustus started severely punishing adultery and giving big tax incentives to have children and to stay married just like today. Marriage was mainly for bloodlines and inheritances back then. Today it's for women who want an annuity the new fashion way.

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

What about polygamy and polyandry?
Posted by: Burton on Nov 19, 2006 1:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, everyone, what about polygamy and polyandry? Is it PC yet to support marriages with multiple partners? (Robert Heinlein had some interesting ideas along these lines in his "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress".)

And as long as we are talking about "alternative couples", are we ready to legalize prostitution? And if it is PC to favor homosexual rights, why not sex worker rights?

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