Same-Sex Marriage "Rights"

While casually flipping through today's New York Times, I came upon an article about New York governor Paterson's decision not to force a vote on same-sex marriage, because the state senate is "unsettled" in aligning its Democratic caucus, and also because Bronx Democratic senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., a Pentecostal minister, is stridently opposed.

Blah, blah blah, until we get this "background:" "Last month, the governor, a champion of same-sex marriage rights, vowed to make sure the Senate voted on the issue before breaking for the summer."

What's wrong with this sentence?

Since when is same-sex marriage a "right"? Why couldn't Danny Hakim, the reporter, have simply said, "...a champion of same-sex marriage, vowed to make sure..."???

I showed the piece to my husband who answered, "Of course. They're so biased. It's just like abortion--pro-life people are 'against abortion rights.'"

And so they are, in the politically correct world of the New York Times. Subtle mental manipulation, so easy to gloss over as it penetrates the brain.

Wanted: More Liberals to Take my Survey--Plus, Some Preliminary Results

It's been less than two days since I posted my survey asking about men's and women's roles in marriage, and already I have more than 550 responses. If you haven't taken the survey (described in the post immediately below), please do:
Click Here to take survey

Most participants came from my link on Townhall.com, and therefore include respondents who describe themselves as conservative or "right-leaning" (93%). I don't really have connections to any blogs or sites frequented by liberals/progressives, but I'd love to have a broader picture--so I'd appreciate if you could please refer others, or link to my survey.

In the meantime, I'm moved by the thought and insight in the answers provided so far.

As of now, more husbands than wives have responded (60%-40%). Participants were married from 3 months to 57 years, with lengths of marriage pretty evenly represented (fewer as years married increase, of course).

Sixty-four percent said they were "very happy" in their marriages; another 28% chose "happy."

An aside: I wonder if this reflects recent research showing that by every measure, conservatives are happier than liberals. Arthur Brooks, summarizing the research from his 2008 book Gross National Happiness to Free Republic, explained it this way:

"About half the 'happiness gap' is explained by two demographic differences. Conservatives are far more religious than liberals, on average, and much more likely to be married. Faith and marriage both strongly improve life quality for most people."

My survey was for married people, so one criterion for happiness was met. They also overwhelmingly reported preference for religion, many using religious references in their comments, so, two down.

Brooks continues, "The other half of the gap is explained by differing worldviews. Conservatives generally look at society and see a collection of individuals. Liberals are much stronger at the level of the collective... Conservatives feel more in control of their world than liberals do; liberals are more likely to feel like victims when others don’t behave the way they 'should.'” Interesting.

Back to my results: Participants in my survey provided perceptive and personal responses to the open-ended questions, especially regarding what makes their marriages work. My eyeballing of ingredients to their happiness, and advice to engaged couples, reveals themes of 1. shared religion, 2. shared devotion to children, and 3. communication/intimacy.

Though in many marriages the wife did not work, a similar number reported wives bringing in the bulk of the income. Only three surveys showed the husband bringing in 0% of the income, however. A large majority reports that the wife does most of the housework, though several people thought I should have included a housework category acknowledging children's contribution. Many noted that the economic climate now requires both partners' incomes, even if they would prefer the wife to focus on home and children.

Questions about the passage of California's Proposition 8, and views on same-sex marriage brought the expected traditionally-minded responses, with many citing the Bible or religious basis for their positions. A large number expressed compassion for gays, but while not opposed to civil union, insisted the time-honored definition of marriage remain.

These findings are not surprising given the self-selected audience, of course, but the eloquence of the personal expressions was touching and will be useful in my book. I just read over one survey where the writer's answers broke my heart--the psychologist in me kicks in! I want to personally respond to so many of the comments--I hope on Wednesday when I guest-host the third hour of the Michael Medved radio show, I'll be able to have a dialog about some of these issues.

I can argue the reasons why gender differences are the crux of marriage but the passion and sense of the comments I've received adds dimension and vitality to the discussion.

I feel honored so many people took the time to complete my survey, and if you did, I hope it was personally beneficial. Please share the questionnaire with your spouses and friends (and especially, refer liberals!) This isn't just about a book project or a political proposition, it's about the very essence of our most central and intimate relationships, a topic always worth exploring.

Dirty Little Secrets about California's Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

On March 7, 2000, 61% of the people of California affirmed that statement. It seems ridiculous that they needed to, given that their state constitution already defined marriage in that state as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

So why the need for Proposition 22? Because the Family Code defining marriage, Section 308, went on to say that the state would recognize valid marriages of other states (written with the presumption, of course, that marriages anywhere else would join only a man to a woman). But gay marriage advocates saw that as the "loophole" that could allow gay marriage to be recognized by the state, a foothold that, by reason of differential treatment, could then bring gay marriage fully on board. With the possibility looming then that Hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage, those seeking to preserve the state's original definition (not to mention the ONLY definition, held universally through millenia), led by the late state Senator William Knight, put the vote to the people, and received overwhelming support.

But, the will of the people be damned. As it was last Thursday (May 15, 2008) when the state supreme court decided to overturn a clear public stand, and change only their LABEL to make gays and lesbian couples interchangeable with traditional couples. What I mean is that the ONLY difference between gay/lesbian couples' standing under CA law was the WORD "marriage," since the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 had already conferred on any gays who chose that union total equality with married people:

“[r]egistered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.” (Fam. Code, § 297.5, subd. (a)

Negating the evidence of its eyes,the court erased the only distinction differentiating the committed relationships of a man and a woman from two men or two women. Just like that. Men are interchangeable with women.

What would John Gray say? Men and women are now both from Marnus. Marriage, that once venerable institution whose entire purpose was to bridge and connect opposite genders into a unique combination incomparable to any other--one that can create human life and nurture it in demonstrably the most beneficial setting--was demoted into something any (adult, non-incestuous) duo, with any sexual fit, could claim.

But why the fuss, when it's already been done? Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in May, 2004, and the sky hasn't fallen. Still, just four months later, Massachusetts' first gay spouses filed for divorce. I wish I knew the figures on the percentage of gay marriages that have hit the rocks, but the state doesn't record such information. Despite a dearth of numbers, there's been plenty in the news about gay splits, including fretting articles about Rhode Island's refusal to grant divorces to same-sex spouses married right across its state line.

Given the activism for gay marriage, you'd think that thousands of long-term couples would've immediately stormed Massachusetts city halls and churches after May, 2004 to tie the knot. Not. A paper for the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy by Maggie Gallagher and Joshua Baker looked at Canadian and European gay marriages as well as in Massachusetts, where in the first 18 months, the authors estimate just 16% of gay residents wed. This figure is wildly higher than their international data--for example, in the Netherlands, where in the first few years after legalization, between 2 and 5% of gays held nuptials.

Caren Chesler, writing in Slate Magazine, notes that even before marriage was on the horizon in California, lots of couples who registered as Domestic Partners wanted out: "When California initially passed a domestic partnership law in 2000, 4,894 gay couples jumped on the bandwagon," she writes. "But when the state beefed up its domestic partnership law in 2005, giving it more of the financial rights and obligations of a heterosexual marriage, gay couples were allowed to withdraw their domestic partnership registrations. And 2,513 did just that. Another 1,651 have done so since."

But findings that most gays don't want to get hitched don't explain why they shouldn't. And indeed even the state of California sees no problem with their legally getting all the goodies of marriage, including a "forever" declaration that's tough to worm out of--the Domestic Partner Act grants them that. The only wafer-thin recognition that the union of men with women is fundamentally different than the unions of two-of-a-kind was the word: Marriage.

And now you can kiss that goodbye, too. The court has done what the people would not: pretend the undeniable. And for what?

Lots of people say it's to give gay people the same "rights" as straights--but of course they have exactly the same right to marry one of the opposite sex. Perhaps it's to show homosexuals respect. But given the achievements and prominence of gays, can citizens of 2008 honestly say their homosexual neighbors are downtrodden? Oh, but is Domestic Partnership a step below marriage in status?

Maybe so--for good reason.

There are two dirty little secrets regarding the gay and liberal/progressive agenda touting same-sex marriage. First, domestic partnership IS a step below marriage, because domestic partnerships are worth less to society than marriages. Second, liberals endorse gay marriage not just for altruism--but because of some desirable sexual consequences for them.

Tackling the first dirty little secret: Nobody's willing to admit in this walk-on-eggshells, PC world that two-of-a-kind marriage is less helpful to society than conventional marriage--but it is. Conventional marriage in its natural manifestations under usual, healthy circumstances brings children into the world, and provides the best environment for nurturing them to sane and productive adulthood. It offers role models for both genders, and, more importantly, role models on behaviors that work (and sometimes, don't) in creating a harmonious marriage. Children learn "how to be married" by watching their parents' interaction. There are bountiful data showing consequences of divorce and early trauma--as well as of growing up in a happy, stable home.

This is not to say that children raised in differing environments turn out badly. Just that far and away kids' best chance for lifelong confidence and inter-gender skills comes from a two-parent, functional family. Children in a loving homosexual home can turn out great--but they're missing part of the gender equation. Sorry, it's not just being loved that equips kids for life--it's being loved AND a host of other factors that research shows are best facilitated when Mom and Dad are on the scene together.

On to dirty little secret number two: Straight liberals/progressives are loathe to admit it, but driving their support for gay marriage (as opposed to support for equal treatment and benefits) is the slackening of sexual standards that creating a flabby definition of marriage brings. If what gays do has the same respect as what straights do, then...there's a lot less judgment and restriction on sexuality in general. Remember, what gays do sexually with each other can never produce children--can never bring a new soul to the world. What gays do sexually is for pleasure only. The key being ONLY. And, by equating acts that have a permanent consequence with those with only a momentary climax, we define downward our purpose as human beings, from time-transcendent to selfishly ephemeral.

I can see you squirming. Certainly within marriage, providing pleasure to a spouse is not only acceptable, but important. Certainly marriages where procreation is not a possibility are valid and worthy of respect (as are commitments between two gays). But speaking in generalities, about classes of relationships, traditional marriages are more essential and crucial for society because they are the source of its continuation and continuity.

Gay marriage divorces sexuality from marriage; marriage becomes merely a declaration of love and a source of personal status. With sexuality disconnected from marriage, then those whose sexual appetites lead them outside their marriages (Bill Clinton comes to mind) need not face scorn. By elevating gay relationships, gay sex, to the "sacred" status of marriage, the range of acceptable sexual behavior widens. OK, he had sex on the Great Seal in the Oval Office. Get over it.

I was born and raised in California. Both my parents were born and raised in California. I love the state; it's my home (I'm still searching for bright light living now in the Northwest). But even if Arnold refuses to veto this redefinition of the most fundamental of institutions, I'm confident that in November the people will once again affirm that only a man and a woman can enter into that most mystical and mysterious union called marriage.