There have been talk in recent years in several US states of possibly extending the waiting period for couples who want to get a divorce. Supporters say that this will give struggling families a 'second chance', whilst opponents say that it may make things even more difficult for people trapped in abusive situations.
As a former supporter of 'divorce reform' and covenant marriages, let me say this: I too would like to see a drastic cut in the divorce rates of the Western world, perhaps 4% would be much healthier than 40%. But to justify an increase in governmental intrusion, into an area of life that is deeply personal and private, requires solid evidence to back it up, as well as a strong democratic majority to support it. It would be forcing moral values down others' throats to suggest otherwise.
Let's look at the evidence first. On the evidence, I am unconvinced that barriers to divorce in the form of waiting periods or compulsory counselling have a major impact on divorce rates. In the US each state has a different waiting period, and the data suggests that there is no clear association between waiting periods and divorce rates. Plenty of no waiting period states are below median in divorce rates, whilst Arkansas with its long waiting period has one of the highest divorce rates. If anything, divorce rates appear to be more divided along regional lines, and appear to be particularly high in the South. This suggests that waiting periods provide minimal benefit at best.
And then there was the experience of covenant marriage. Exit from covenant marriages come with a longer waiting period and there may be counselling provisions too. However, evidence I have seen suggest a divorce rate of around 25% from memory. There is a reduction there, but it's around 20% or less. Plus there is sometimes also the option of getting the divorce in a neighbouring state. Given that only very few couples chose covenant marriage in the first place, this represents a self selected group, often more religious and traditional, who definitely take marriage more seriously. You would expect a significantly lower divorce rate amongst this group, frankly. Therefore, I expect the real benefit to be 10% or less, and it is entirely plausible that there is actually no benefit at all.
Let's look at the democratic situation now. Opinion on this issue appears split. A return to fault based divorce appears to be out of favour across the Western world, and mandatory long waiting periods and counselling continues to be strongly opposed by a significant number of people. Democratic opinion alone justifies not changing the current divorce system. The only other option is to provide a two-tiered marriage system as in covenant marriage, but take up rates are low and it may create more problems than it solves.
I would suggest that most people in the 1950s did not divorce not because of the barriers, but because they truly would not even think about getting a divorce unless there was abuse in the relationship, because culturally you didn't walk away from a marriage that was 'becoming boring', or 'simply does not satisfy me anymore'. Everyone knew the expectations of marriage. Such things as Hollywood 'mini marriages' would be considered highly offensive by most. I suggest that we return to this culture. Divorce should be available, but we should all have a cultural consensus that it is only for the unfortunate few suffering abuse at the hands of their spouses. It should be never something to even think about just because you had a minor argument with your spouse. It should never be seen as a common event. One aspect about the 50s view to divorce that I surely don't want back however is discrimination against divorcees. Many divorcees have suffered so deeply, it is only fair that a compassionate society show them the deepest condolences and support. Anything less is judgmental and cold hearted.
'Divorce reform' is a non solution that pretends to be a solution, to satisfy those who cannot find a solution but are angry at the sky high divorce rates in the Western world. I suggest that we should look at proper solutions instead. I think the answer lies in culture. Using government to solve a cultural problem is basically anti-libertarian, and before long we are on our way to fascism.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the nihilistic deconstructive left from destroying the West.
Labels
Conservative Politics are Often Maladaptive (Or Why I Stopped Being Politically Conservative)
Conservative ideals are often framed in terms of family values, upholding tradition, not compromising traditional liberties, and the like. Many people hold these ideals, regardless of race, gender, cultural background, occupation or sexual orientation. And they are noble ideals! Who wouldn't want healthier families and strong traditions?
And then there is conservative politics, an attempt in translating some of those values into policies. The results are often ineffective, sometimes counter productive, and usually in violation of the principles of good government. For example, restrictions against abortion lead to an industry of backyard abortions, and the 'safe, legal and rare' position is much better. Combine that with adequate social welfare for single parents and struggling families, and I believe abortion rates will dramatically decrease. But no, in order to conserve the past which did not have a welfare state, Western conservative politics demand that no such welfare be provided. Another example is marriage equality. It is the best chance for a new generation of gay and lesbian couples to experience the value of permanent, lifelong commitment. However, conservative politics is again too often about just clinging onto the past, whatever the outcome. A great opportunity to promote and revive marriage is thus wasted. In fact, much of conservative politics, both economically and socially, is all about being rigid about rules from the past. It should really be called 'deliberately maladaptive politics', if anything.
Conservative politics is in essence lazy thinking. The solution to everything is just to turn back the clock, without regard for actual consequences. There's no critical thinking about if particular policies are good for families or good for liberty in actual result. Even if a policy is clearly bad for families and brings our traditions into disrepute with younger generations, conservative politicians often don't care about it. Results don't seem to matter too much with them. Times change, and we have to be adaptive. The only way to work for healthier families and strong traditions is to work for these goals within the context of the present, where a slightly different approach may be needed compared with what worked in the past. This is the biggest blind spot of conservative politics, and what makes it such a failure when it comes to results.
Instead of supporting conservative politics, I suggest that traditionalists simply work towards better outcomes for families and a stronger guarantee for liberties, with everyone else in society. In a society where this is the case, there would be plenty of room for a conservative lifestyle, and to promote traditionalist culture. It surely would be much more satisfying than engaging in maladaptive 'conservative politics', right?
And then there is conservative politics, an attempt in translating some of those values into policies. The results are often ineffective, sometimes counter productive, and usually in violation of the principles of good government. For example, restrictions against abortion lead to an industry of backyard abortions, and the 'safe, legal and rare' position is much better. Combine that with adequate social welfare for single parents and struggling families, and I believe abortion rates will dramatically decrease. But no, in order to conserve the past which did not have a welfare state, Western conservative politics demand that no such welfare be provided. Another example is marriage equality. It is the best chance for a new generation of gay and lesbian couples to experience the value of permanent, lifelong commitment. However, conservative politics is again too often about just clinging onto the past, whatever the outcome. A great opportunity to promote and revive marriage is thus wasted. In fact, much of conservative politics, both economically and socially, is all about being rigid about rules from the past. It should really be called 'deliberately maladaptive politics', if anything.
Conservative politics is in essence lazy thinking. The solution to everything is just to turn back the clock, without regard for actual consequences. There's no critical thinking about if particular policies are good for families or good for liberty in actual result. Even if a policy is clearly bad for families and brings our traditions into disrepute with younger generations, conservative politicians often don't care about it. Results don't seem to matter too much with them. Times change, and we have to be adaptive. The only way to work for healthier families and strong traditions is to work for these goals within the context of the present, where a slightly different approach may be needed compared with what worked in the past. This is the biggest blind spot of conservative politics, and what makes it such a failure when it comes to results.
Instead of supporting conservative politics, I suggest that traditionalists simply work towards better outcomes for families and a stronger guarantee for liberties, with everyone else in society. In a society where this is the case, there would be plenty of room for a conservative lifestyle, and to promote traditionalist culture. It surely would be much more satisfying than engaging in maladaptive 'conservative politics', right?
Actual Caring is Better Than Abstract Theories
by TaraElla
Abstract theories are good for winning arguments. For example, there's the theory of 'privilege', with its subsets of gender privilege, race privilege and class privilege, which I am sure most people do not know anything about. Some of my friends are very much into arguments about who has more privilege - or how would being gay, female, black, disabled or transgender rank in terms of who has the least privilege. Some days I would get so tired of it. There's a major lack of social justice out there, who cares who is more 'privileged' than who else?
I would rather prefer actually caring about what people want and need in their lives. For example, everyone needs access to food, shelter, health care and education. These things are under attack from fundamentalist pro-business politicians right now. Besides economic injustice, society needs to also correct its remaining social injustices, the chief one being marriage inequality I think. Caring about all of this is something everyone can do, simply because they do not wish to see others suffer, simply because they would not tolerate blatant injustice in the society around them. It is both simpler to understand and simpler to act upon, and much more effective in improving people's lives, than abstract arguments about 'privilege'.
I know being simple about my social ideals sometimes makes me look 'less intelligent' than some other commentators, but then, who cares? I certainly don't. (Especially when I probably have more postgraduate degrees than those who are saying I'm being simplistic).
Abstract theories are good for winning arguments. For example, there's the theory of 'privilege', with its subsets of gender privilege, race privilege and class privilege, which I am sure most people do not know anything about. Some of my friends are very much into arguments about who has more privilege - or how would being gay, female, black, disabled or transgender rank in terms of who has the least privilege. Some days I would get so tired of it. There's a major lack of social justice out there, who cares who is more 'privileged' than who else?
I would rather prefer actually caring about what people want and need in their lives. For example, everyone needs access to food, shelter, health care and education. These things are under attack from fundamentalist pro-business politicians right now. Besides economic injustice, society needs to also correct its remaining social injustices, the chief one being marriage inequality I think. Caring about all of this is something everyone can do, simply because they do not wish to see others suffer, simply because they would not tolerate blatant injustice in the society around them. It is both simpler to understand and simpler to act upon, and much more effective in improving people's lives, than abstract arguments about 'privilege'.
I know being simple about my social ideals sometimes makes me look 'less intelligent' than some other commentators, but then, who cares? I certainly don't. (Especially when I probably have more postgraduate degrees than those who are saying I'm being simplistic).
Expected Return from Hiatus
We will return from hiatus later this year. It is expected to be around the middle of the year.
Hiatus
The TaraElla Values Group has been suspended for now.
The website and all the resources will remain available indefinitely.
The website and all the resources will remain available indefinitely.
How Marriage Equality Will Save Marriage and Families
We all need to recognise one thing: marriage is in crisis. Marriage rates have been declining for many years, and the decline has not halted unfortunately. If the trend is not reversed, I am afraid that many of us will live to see a time when marriage will have become a minority concern. It's a tough reality, but it's one that we need to face.
In response to this phenomenon, there have been efforts on marriage promotion. However, these have been very limited in their success. Just why marriage promotion is not working very well needs to be studied, and programs will need to be improved upon. I suspect that opponents painting marriage as outdated, hierarchical and elitist, amongst other things, have had at least some effect. I don't believe in any of that rubbish personally, but I know people who do. In the long run we need strategies to defeat comprehensively the 'liberation' ideology that has torpedoed marriage. However, there is no way we can win either the short or long term game on this without marriage equality.
Looking into the future, there is one clear threat to marriage promotion: that much of the younger generation are starting to see marriage as an exclusionary, bigoted institution. In fact, it is happening right now - there have been plenty of reports of young people including pleas for marriage equality in their ceremonies, feeling conflicted about sending out the marriage invites, etc. Not every young couple feels the same disgust about the exclusionary aspects, but as long as a significant proportion of the younger generation do feel this way, I suspect few of them would be too happy to get on board marriage promotion or be actively pro-marriage in culture. Not when it is promoting an institution excluding and hurting their gay and lesbian friends, and in many cases, family members.
Let me put it more bluntly: when marriage clearly excludes gay and lesbian couples, every word of marriage promotion will hurt their feelings - this is literally true, and something that cannot be said any milder. As a result, marriage promotion will rightly be seen as a hurtful exercise by many young people. Even I, a supporter of marriage, have had trouble explaining to my friends that whilst I support marriage I don't support the exclusionary aspect of the marriage laws out there. I simply have given up on talking about the matter most of the time.
Most of the older generations will have a difficult time grasping the concepts outlined above. After all, their generation of gay people are often more closeted, and many were/are not that interested in marriage. In any case, the older generations developed their attitudes towards marriage without the same sex marriage issue in consideration. However, they must try to put themselves in the shoes of the younger generations if marriage revitalisation and promotion is to work in the younger generations. After all, the most important place for marriage to flourish, the most important cohort for which marriage must remain strong, is the younger generations - because they are or soon will be raising the next generation.
Just like on many other issues, standing still and not changing a thing does not mean we can go back to the past. It does not mean conservative values won't miss out. Inaction is dangerous, especially when the world is changing. If a significant portion of a whole generation becomes ambivalent to marriage, the damage may take many generations to repair. On the other hand, if we take advantage of the opportunity of marriage equality and usher in a new era of public conversation and enthusiasm about marriage, things won't change overnight, but over time they will, in the direction we want things to change. And whilst political issues often take a long time to resolve, ten years down the line it may already be too late to grasp this opportunity. Now is the time to support marriage equality, for anyone who is serious about the future of marriage and family values in society.
In response to this phenomenon, there have been efforts on marriage promotion. However, these have been very limited in their success. Just why marriage promotion is not working very well needs to be studied, and programs will need to be improved upon. I suspect that opponents painting marriage as outdated, hierarchical and elitist, amongst other things, have had at least some effect. I don't believe in any of that rubbish personally, but I know people who do. In the long run we need strategies to defeat comprehensively the 'liberation' ideology that has torpedoed marriage. However, there is no way we can win either the short or long term game on this without marriage equality.
Looking into the future, there is one clear threat to marriage promotion: that much of the younger generation are starting to see marriage as an exclusionary, bigoted institution. In fact, it is happening right now - there have been plenty of reports of young people including pleas for marriage equality in their ceremonies, feeling conflicted about sending out the marriage invites, etc. Not every young couple feels the same disgust about the exclusionary aspects, but as long as a significant proportion of the younger generation do feel this way, I suspect few of them would be too happy to get on board marriage promotion or be actively pro-marriage in culture. Not when it is promoting an institution excluding and hurting their gay and lesbian friends, and in many cases, family members.
Let me put it more bluntly: when marriage clearly excludes gay and lesbian couples, every word of marriage promotion will hurt their feelings - this is literally true, and something that cannot be said any milder. As a result, marriage promotion will rightly be seen as a hurtful exercise by many young people. Even I, a supporter of marriage, have had trouble explaining to my friends that whilst I support marriage I don't support the exclusionary aspect of the marriage laws out there. I simply have given up on talking about the matter most of the time.
Most of the older generations will have a difficult time grasping the concepts outlined above. After all, their generation of gay people are often more closeted, and many were/are not that interested in marriage. In any case, the older generations developed their attitudes towards marriage without the same sex marriage issue in consideration. However, they must try to put themselves in the shoes of the younger generations if marriage revitalisation and promotion is to work in the younger generations. After all, the most important place for marriage to flourish, the most important cohort for which marriage must remain strong, is the younger generations - because they are or soon will be raising the next generation.
Just like on many other issues, standing still and not changing a thing does not mean we can go back to the past. It does not mean conservative values won't miss out. Inaction is dangerous, especially when the world is changing. If a significant portion of a whole generation becomes ambivalent to marriage, the damage may take many generations to repair. On the other hand, if we take advantage of the opportunity of marriage equality and usher in a new era of public conversation and enthusiasm about marriage, things won't change overnight, but over time they will, in the direction we want things to change. And whilst political issues often take a long time to resolve, ten years down the line it may already be too late to grasp this opportunity. Now is the time to support marriage equality, for anyone who is serious about the future of marriage and family values in society.
Answering Some Arguments Against Marriage Equality
1. Gay marriages destroy the purpose of procreation in marriage, and leads to the destruction of the ‘conjugal’ and ‘fruitful’ reasons for marriage.
If we are to be strict about this, any proven infertile couple should be excluded too. However, that would taint marriage as a harsh and exclusionary institution, and in an age where it has become an option rather than a necessity, would drive many away from it. In the eyes of many particularly younger people, excluding gay couples is just as cruel. Again, rigidity should not apply. We can still strongly stress that marriage is for procreation as a primary purpose, whilst still stressing that we need to be inclusive and compassionate otherwise, and therefore cannot use black-and-white rules to shut people out. This isn’t too hard to understand, is it?
2. Marriage is meant to be a complimentary institution.
This is a useful concept, but a really wishy-washy rule. Not all opposite sex couples are complimentary in their character, and certainly not all opposite sex couples are complimentary in a particular way that same sex couples cannot be, unless you are talking about the physical only.
If physical complementariness is what you're talking about, many infertile couples should be excluded too, as should couples were one member was born with certain 'intersex' medical conditions (e.g. Klinefelter's syndrome - look it up if you don't know what it is), as they are not strictly complementary either. The trouble is that, many men with Klinefelter's don't even know they have it! Again, complementariness is often the case, but we cannot be rigid here.
If spiritual complementariness is what you're talking about, many straight couples come together because of similarity rather than complementariness (think many geeky couples), or because they are complimentary in non-traditional ways (e.g. the alpha female and the omega male), and these have clear parallels in same sex couples too. Of course most people still live out traditional gender roles and always will. But society has already decided that non-traditional gender roles are OK too for the minority whose lives are like that - and as long as they are heterosexual they can legally marry too. Therefore, if those people are allowed to marry legally, why not same sex couples?
3. Gay Couples are Not the Same Thing as Straight Couples
This tends to not be very convincing for those who know gay couples well, again more commonly found in the younger generation. Therefore, this argument is often voiced and accepted by older opponents of equality. And for good reason too - for those who have observed and known gay couples, they will find that there isn't a clear line they can draw, except regarding physical body parts.
Different straight couples bond over different things or reasons, and their relationships are held together by very different central concepts. Technically, they can be divided into different categories too. In this sense maybe we can have the glamour-marriage, the religious-marriage, the Chinese-marriage, the Irish-marriage and so on. But we don't do that - marriage is a broad church and a society wide brand, and for a good reason. On the other hand, one straight couple's relationship may have more in common with a same sex couple's relationship than with another straight couple, other than the body parts. So it doesn't make sense to draw the line at the body parts thing, right?
4. It has Historically Been This Way
There was much confusion and ignorance around same sex attracted people in history. They were just not allowed to live openly as couples. Now that this is no longer the case, not only is denial of legal marriage ridiculous and arbitrary, it threatens to delegitimize marriage in an age where already it is seen as 'only a choice'. In fact, that some couples can be allowed to live openly in relationships but not to be married is entirely the creation of the ‘liberation’ of the 70s and 80s anyway. As conservatives, we should not just allow marriage equality, but we should encourage gay couples to get married, like society encouraged everyone living in a couple relationship to get married bak when family values were strong. Marriage equality presents a chance to re-assert pre-liberation culture.
5. The Family has been destroyed enough in the 20th century
This had nothing to do with gay people, and it was all due to ‘liberation ideology’, which marriage equality does not come from and is often diametrically opposed to. Many marriage equality supporters are opposed to ‘liberation ideology’ in almost every form. It is also inconceivable that marriage equality would lead to any change in most marriages, the way that no fault divorce changed the landscape for example. No fault divorce applied to every single marriage, whilst same sex marriages do not change a thing about any heterosexual marriage.
In fact, for marriage promotion to work and to have a strong case against liberation ideology, we need to show everyone that traditional values are to be aspired for, can be aspired to by everybody, and are not bigoted or apartheid-supporting. When there is a consensus about gay people not being able to change their sexual orientation, if marriage excludes gay people it will always be seen as bigoted and apartheid supporting by a large proportion of the younger population.
6. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
If we think of the purpose of marriage in society narrowly, the state also should not benefit any infertile and childless marriages. However, part of the way marriage works is by upholding marriage as a brand for the whole society, and that brand needs to be inclusive and non-bigoted to have the most appeal to potential supporters for it to work that way. The benefits of this will return to the majority of marriages – i.e. child bearing, fertile heterosexual marriages, by encouraging marriage and a strong marriage culture in the whole population. Hence same sex marriages still support the state’s purpose of benefitting marriage, although more indirectly. Moreover, further benefits can be seen in a general return to commitment and family values, reduction of STI and HIV rates in certain communities, etc.
7. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
This is a myth. See the Canadian Civil Marriage Act 2005 and what it says, for example. When a law is written that way, to impose its acceptance on all society would require ANOTHER change in law, which may even be unconstitutional in most countries.
On the other hand, opponents of marriage equality are forcing THEIR version of marriage down the throats of everybody else, by having it enshrined in national law. It doesn't matter than theirs is the traditional version - it is no longer accepted as a consensus in most of the West either, and is thought of as offensive by many people in our society.
When there is a clear conflict between two visions of a shared thing (our laws), we should proceed to consider the most inclusive solution. As the equal definition of marriage also includes all heterosexual marriages, but the heterosexual definition excludes same sex marriages, society should opt for the more inclusive definition, which would satisfy to a degree everyone on both sides, as nobody's actual rights get compromised.
Reports about businesses being 'forced' to serve gay couples have not been due to marriage laws. In fact, many such reports have come from Australia, the UK and many other countries where marriage equality is not yet the law. It has to do with the anti-discrimination law in these countries, which often say that businesses must not serve gay people, and by extension gay couples, any differently to the way they serve straight people. Marriage does not appear to factor into this.
If we are to be strict about this, any proven infertile couple should be excluded too. However, that would taint marriage as a harsh and exclusionary institution, and in an age where it has become an option rather than a necessity, would drive many away from it. In the eyes of many particularly younger people, excluding gay couples is just as cruel. Again, rigidity should not apply. We can still strongly stress that marriage is for procreation as a primary purpose, whilst still stressing that we need to be inclusive and compassionate otherwise, and therefore cannot use black-and-white rules to shut people out. This isn’t too hard to understand, is it?
2. Marriage is meant to be a complimentary institution.
This is a useful concept, but a really wishy-washy rule. Not all opposite sex couples are complimentary in their character, and certainly not all opposite sex couples are complimentary in a particular way that same sex couples cannot be, unless you are talking about the physical only.
If physical complementariness is what you're talking about, many infertile couples should be excluded too, as should couples were one member was born with certain 'intersex' medical conditions (e.g. Klinefelter's syndrome - look it up if you don't know what it is), as they are not strictly complementary either. The trouble is that, many men with Klinefelter's don't even know they have it! Again, complementariness is often the case, but we cannot be rigid here.
If spiritual complementariness is what you're talking about, many straight couples come together because of similarity rather than complementariness (think many geeky couples), or because they are complimentary in non-traditional ways (e.g. the alpha female and the omega male), and these have clear parallels in same sex couples too. Of course most people still live out traditional gender roles and always will. But society has already decided that non-traditional gender roles are OK too for the minority whose lives are like that - and as long as they are heterosexual they can legally marry too. Therefore, if those people are allowed to marry legally, why not same sex couples?
3. Gay Couples are Not the Same Thing as Straight Couples
This tends to not be very convincing for those who know gay couples well, again more commonly found in the younger generation. Therefore, this argument is often voiced and accepted by older opponents of equality. And for good reason too - for those who have observed and known gay couples, they will find that there isn't a clear line they can draw, except regarding physical body parts.
Different straight couples bond over different things or reasons, and their relationships are held together by very different central concepts. Technically, they can be divided into different categories too. In this sense maybe we can have the glamour-marriage, the religious-marriage, the Chinese-marriage, the Irish-marriage and so on. But we don't do that - marriage is a broad church and a society wide brand, and for a good reason. On the other hand, one straight couple's relationship may have more in common with a same sex couple's relationship than with another straight couple, other than the body parts. So it doesn't make sense to draw the line at the body parts thing, right?
4. It has Historically Been This Way
There was much confusion and ignorance around same sex attracted people in history. They were just not allowed to live openly as couples. Now that this is no longer the case, not only is denial of legal marriage ridiculous and arbitrary, it threatens to delegitimize marriage in an age where already it is seen as 'only a choice'. In fact, that some couples can be allowed to live openly in relationships but not to be married is entirely the creation of the ‘liberation’ of the 70s and 80s anyway. As conservatives, we should not just allow marriage equality, but we should encourage gay couples to get married, like society encouraged everyone living in a couple relationship to get married bak when family values were strong. Marriage equality presents a chance to re-assert pre-liberation culture.
5. The Family has been destroyed enough in the 20th century
This had nothing to do with gay people, and it was all due to ‘liberation ideology’, which marriage equality does not come from and is often diametrically opposed to. Many marriage equality supporters are opposed to ‘liberation ideology’ in almost every form. It is also inconceivable that marriage equality would lead to any change in most marriages, the way that no fault divorce changed the landscape for example. No fault divorce applied to every single marriage, whilst same sex marriages do not change a thing about any heterosexual marriage.
In fact, for marriage promotion to work and to have a strong case against liberation ideology, we need to show everyone that traditional values are to be aspired for, can be aspired to by everybody, and are not bigoted or apartheid-supporting. When there is a consensus about gay people not being able to change their sexual orientation, if marriage excludes gay people it will always be seen as bigoted and apartheid supporting by a large proportion of the younger population.
6. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage
If we think of the purpose of marriage in society narrowly, the state also should not benefit any infertile and childless marriages. However, part of the way marriage works is by upholding marriage as a brand for the whole society, and that brand needs to be inclusive and non-bigoted to have the most appeal to potential supporters for it to work that way. The benefits of this will return to the majority of marriages – i.e. child bearing, fertile heterosexual marriages, by encouraging marriage and a strong marriage culture in the whole population. Hence same sex marriages still support the state’s purpose of benefitting marriage, although more indirectly. Moreover, further benefits can be seen in a general return to commitment and family values, reduction of STI and HIV rates in certain communities, etc.
7. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society
This is a myth. See the Canadian Civil Marriage Act 2005 and what it says, for example. When a law is written that way, to impose its acceptance on all society would require ANOTHER change in law, which may even be unconstitutional in most countries.
On the other hand, opponents of marriage equality are forcing THEIR version of marriage down the throats of everybody else, by having it enshrined in national law. It doesn't matter than theirs is the traditional version - it is no longer accepted as a consensus in most of the West either, and is thought of as offensive by many people in our society.
When there is a clear conflict between two visions of a shared thing (our laws), we should proceed to consider the most inclusive solution. As the equal definition of marriage also includes all heterosexual marriages, but the heterosexual definition excludes same sex marriages, society should opt for the more inclusive definition, which would satisfy to a degree everyone on both sides, as nobody's actual rights get compromised.
Reports about businesses being 'forced' to serve gay couples have not been due to marriage laws. In fact, many such reports have come from Australia, the UK and many other countries where marriage equality is not yet the law. It has to do with the anti-discrimination law in these countries, which often say that businesses must not serve gay people, and by extension gay couples, any differently to the way they serve straight people. Marriage does not appear to factor into this.
Marriage Equality: A Case of Gays Saying 'Look At Me Now'?
To many observers, gay couples campaigning to be included in marriage seems like yet another 'Look At Me Now' moment. We have long repealed any laws against gay behaviour, we have given them couple rights in society, in many places we have given them the option of civil unions, and yet they are screaming for more. Aren't we fed up by now? Won't they take what they have and go away quietly?
Once upon a time I thought like that too. Then I studied the topic carefully, and I found out just how wrong I was.
The gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage and a family life, even if they do not have children to raise, are actively seeking to join the age old tradition of marriage and commitment. They have actively rejected the 'liberation' movement, which has promised them a life of endless hedonism, lots of sexual freedom and no institutions to rule their lives by. Just like us, they have chosen to reject the postmodern promise of endless freedom and have chosen to embrace instead the tradition of commitment and family values. Not many people out there are aware of this, but for choosing to side with tradition they often face the ridicule, disdain and outright discouragement of more 'liberation' orientated gay and lesbian people. For choosing to adopt our values and join our lifestyle, they have been derided as asssimilationists, people who are ashamed of who they are and seek conservative society's approval at all costs. We, the people who embrace family values, are their natural home. To reject them here too would be far too cruel and indeed inconsistent with our compassionate family values. To reject them would also be to confirm that their critics are right, that being gay means you cannot embrace family values, that you must embrace 'liberationism'. I really don't think that is the right message to send.
The fact that gay and lesbian couples are actively rejecting 'liberation' and embracing the tradition of marriage is another thing we should take heart to, and may even be able to use as a starting point for a general return to family values in society. The fact that gay and lesbian couples, who live in a culture where just a decade or so ago 'liberation' was the norm, have come to reject it so decisively, can be a great conversation starter for a wider societal discussion on marriage and family values, and why they represent a superior lifestyle to 'liberation'. Again, it is an opportunity we can only take if we first embrace the idea of marriage equality first.
A related argument is that gay marriages will never be universally accepted as real marriages, not by many churches at least. So why should they bother? Well, I personally still see an ideal for the future where divorce rates go back down to 1950s levels for all couples - again this is not universally accepted as a goal. Shall we just give up on everything then? I guess not. If it's good for family values in the end, we should embrace it. Others may take a longer time to do so, but we should be part of the process to help along any idea that may bolster family values for our future generations. Letting go of this (or any other) opportunity is not something we can afford to do, when the future of family values is already looking this shaky.
Once upon a time I thought like that too. Then I studied the topic carefully, and I found out just how wrong I was.
The gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage and a family life, even if they do not have children to raise, are actively seeking to join the age old tradition of marriage and commitment. They have actively rejected the 'liberation' movement, which has promised them a life of endless hedonism, lots of sexual freedom and no institutions to rule their lives by. Just like us, they have chosen to reject the postmodern promise of endless freedom and have chosen to embrace instead the tradition of commitment and family values. Not many people out there are aware of this, but for choosing to side with tradition they often face the ridicule, disdain and outright discouragement of more 'liberation' orientated gay and lesbian people. For choosing to adopt our values and join our lifestyle, they have been derided as asssimilationists, people who are ashamed of who they are and seek conservative society's approval at all costs. We, the people who embrace family values, are their natural home. To reject them here too would be far too cruel and indeed inconsistent with our compassionate family values. To reject them would also be to confirm that their critics are right, that being gay means you cannot embrace family values, that you must embrace 'liberationism'. I really don't think that is the right message to send.
The fact that gay and lesbian couples are actively rejecting 'liberation' and embracing the tradition of marriage is another thing we should take heart to, and may even be able to use as a starting point for a general return to family values in society. The fact that gay and lesbian couples, who live in a culture where just a decade or so ago 'liberation' was the norm, have come to reject it so decisively, can be a great conversation starter for a wider societal discussion on marriage and family values, and why they represent a superior lifestyle to 'liberation'. Again, it is an opportunity we can only take if we first embrace the idea of marriage equality first.
A related argument is that gay marriages will never be universally accepted as real marriages, not by many churches at least. So why should they bother? Well, I personally still see an ideal for the future where divorce rates go back down to 1950s levels for all couples - again this is not universally accepted as a goal. Shall we just give up on everything then? I guess not. If it's good for family values in the end, we should embrace it. Others may take a longer time to do so, but we should be part of the process to help along any idea that may bolster family values for our future generations. Letting go of this (or any other) opportunity is not something we can afford to do, when the future of family values is already looking this shaky.
What Marriage Really Is, and How it Relates to Marriage Equality
One major concern of modern times is that marriage rates have declined, generation after generation. Non-marriage births have risen all over the West. Another concern with marriage right now is the sky high divorce rates. A society with divorce rates above 40% really is not sustainable in the long run, I believe.
The proposed solution is to restart a conversation about what marriage is and what the commitment means. Remake the case about marriage, procreation and family - specifically how marriage is a commitment that is not just about the 'love' and desires of adults, but rather a stabilising institution that forms a good foundation for a family. I totally agree that this would help a lot. As a society, we should discuss and hopefully come to a conclusion that marriage is not just about love or adult desires, but is about the formation of families and providing for them a stable structure.
Some people have suggested that including gay couples in marriage would take us further away from the above consensus. In fact, some have even suggested that it is because society has lost the above consensus regarding marriage that the idea of gay marriages has become appealing to young people in society. I disagree with all of this. In fact, I not only disagree with all of this, but I will take the opposite view: embracing marriage equality is the first step in having the public conversation about marriage, in getting the public to be receptive of our arguments, and the only way in which a consensus about the nature of marriage can be re-established.
Honestly, if the arguments about marriage, procreation and stable families are tied to necessarily excluding gay couples, it wouldn't work. It would severely turn off at least a significant proportion of society - many of which will be young people, the very people who the conversation ought to engage to be successful. Many young people now believe that excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage is unacceptable, period. Through these lens, any argument purporting to make a case to exclude gay people from marriage will be seen as bigoted.
I propose an alternative: we need to allow gay and lesbian couples to get married as a matter of equal compassion and inclusion. Once this issue is sorted out, the clean air then lets us deal with the matter of what marriage is. No longer will idea about marriage, procreation and stable families be associated with bigotry. My critics say that including gay couples necessarily defeats the procreation and family idea of marriage. I strongly disagree. We already do include infertile and childless couples in marriage - as a society, we have long believed excluding them will be too cruel an act, whilst including them will not affect the function and ideal of the majority of procreating marriages and families. Whilst the older generation may be used to the idea of marriage excluding gay couples, for much of the younger generation, their exclusion is just as cruel as excluding infertile couples. Including gay and lesbian couples, who are by definition infertile couples, would not really distract from the idea of marriage being for procreation and for the stability of families resulting from the procreation act, any more than allowing heterosexual childless or infertile couples to marry (as we currently do) would. In reality, being rigid rarely works. I believe it would make perfect sense to say that marriage was meant to help couples set up family by encouraging procreation and then providing a stable structure for the resulting family, but being an inclusive society, we also extend this institution to cover those couples who unfortunately cannot procreate but are living in similarly committed arrangements.
The proposed solution is to restart a conversation about what marriage is and what the commitment means. Remake the case about marriage, procreation and family - specifically how marriage is a commitment that is not just about the 'love' and desires of adults, but rather a stabilising institution that forms a good foundation for a family. I totally agree that this would help a lot. As a society, we should discuss and hopefully come to a conclusion that marriage is not just about love or adult desires, but is about the formation of families and providing for them a stable structure.
Some people have suggested that including gay couples in marriage would take us further away from the above consensus. In fact, some have even suggested that it is because society has lost the above consensus regarding marriage that the idea of gay marriages has become appealing to young people in society. I disagree with all of this. In fact, I not only disagree with all of this, but I will take the opposite view: embracing marriage equality is the first step in having the public conversation about marriage, in getting the public to be receptive of our arguments, and the only way in which a consensus about the nature of marriage can be re-established.
Honestly, if the arguments about marriage, procreation and stable families are tied to necessarily excluding gay couples, it wouldn't work. It would severely turn off at least a significant proportion of society - many of which will be young people, the very people who the conversation ought to engage to be successful. Many young people now believe that excluding gay and lesbian couples from marriage is unacceptable, period. Through these lens, any argument purporting to make a case to exclude gay people from marriage will be seen as bigoted.
I propose an alternative: we need to allow gay and lesbian couples to get married as a matter of equal compassion and inclusion. Once this issue is sorted out, the clean air then lets us deal with the matter of what marriage is. No longer will idea about marriage, procreation and stable families be associated with bigotry. My critics say that including gay couples necessarily defeats the procreation and family idea of marriage. I strongly disagree. We already do include infertile and childless couples in marriage - as a society, we have long believed excluding them will be too cruel an act, whilst including them will not affect the function and ideal of the majority of procreating marriages and families. Whilst the older generation may be used to the idea of marriage excluding gay couples, for much of the younger generation, their exclusion is just as cruel as excluding infertile couples. Including gay and lesbian couples, who are by definition infertile couples, would not really distract from the idea of marriage being for procreation and for the stability of families resulting from the procreation act, any more than allowing heterosexual childless or infertile couples to marry (as we currently do) would. In reality, being rigid rarely works. I believe it would make perfect sense to say that marriage was meant to help couples set up family by encouraging procreation and then providing a stable structure for the resulting family, but being an inclusive society, we also extend this institution to cover those couples who unfortunately cannot procreate but are living in similarly committed arrangements.
There's No Way Back to the 50s, but There can Still be a Bright Future for Family Values
Many defenders of family values, especially older ones, tend to think like this: marriage did not include gay couples a few decades back, and family values functioned well. We want to go back there. Therefore, we must oppose gay marriages.
However, this is a faulty argument. I do acknowledge that the decline of family values since the 1960s is a sad thing. However, there are many reasons for that, and gay people are not part of the reason. There is simply no way 2% of the population can cause or significantly contribute to a society-wide decline in family values. Things have gone wrong in mainstream straight society, and it is there things must be fixed. Scapegoating gay people and gay rights will only blind us to the real problems that need to be fixed.
Meanwhile, things have changed. In the past, many believed being gay to be a lifestyle choice. This is because they haven't seen many gay people around them. When everyone around you is straight, many people naturally believe that being straight is the only natural way of being, and being gay must be a choice some people in a very different segment of society make, for twisted reasons. In turn, this homophobia has kept gay people closeted and underground for centuries. Today's younger generation did not grow up this way, however. They see gay people everywhere in their lives. They have gay friends, and often have gay family members. That being gay is a characteristic of a person and not a lifestyle choice is a clear thing for the majority of the younger generation, and gay couples today live openly amongst us.
As the situation has changed, we cannot just hope to go back in time by refusing to accommodate the new situations. Excluding gay couples from marriage was just natural in the 1950s, as gay couples were generally closeted and excluded from every sphere of society. Excluding gay couples from marriage in the 2010s when they clearly live normal, integrated lives amongst us is rightly seen as a form of apartheid by many young people. Withholding rights and respect from gay people in the 1950s was just natural, as it was accepted that they have a deviant and criminal lifestyle choice. Withholding rights and respect from gay people in the 2010s feels like an injustice to many people, because it is hating people for who they are. In the 1950s marriage was a society-wide brand even as it excluded gay couples, because gay couples were out-of-sight, out-of-mind anyway. In the 2010s, if marriage excludes gay couples, it is by definition no longer a society-wide brand, and therefore would be seen to be very optional even amongst straight couples. In general, if we continue to hold the line that marriage should exclude gay couples, marriage itself is being demeaned in the eyes of many people, particularly younger people. This is clearly not a good way to encourage family values.
A re-implementation of the 1950s playbook is not feasible. The 1950s never will be again. But what we can hope for is a future implementation of family values that will make the whole concept popular society-wide again. Marriage equality is part of the work that will get us there. It renews the idea that marriage should be a society-wide brand, and that it is about family and commitment, rather than exclusion. Without embracing marriage equality, the public image of marriage can never be healthy enough for us to successfully then embark on further campaigns of marriage promotion and public conversations on marriage, which are what will bring in a new golden age for family values.
However, this is a faulty argument. I do acknowledge that the decline of family values since the 1960s is a sad thing. However, there are many reasons for that, and gay people are not part of the reason. There is simply no way 2% of the population can cause or significantly contribute to a society-wide decline in family values. Things have gone wrong in mainstream straight society, and it is there things must be fixed. Scapegoating gay people and gay rights will only blind us to the real problems that need to be fixed.
Meanwhile, things have changed. In the past, many believed being gay to be a lifestyle choice. This is because they haven't seen many gay people around them. When everyone around you is straight, many people naturally believe that being straight is the only natural way of being, and being gay must be a choice some people in a very different segment of society make, for twisted reasons. In turn, this homophobia has kept gay people closeted and underground for centuries. Today's younger generation did not grow up this way, however. They see gay people everywhere in their lives. They have gay friends, and often have gay family members. That being gay is a characteristic of a person and not a lifestyle choice is a clear thing for the majority of the younger generation, and gay couples today live openly amongst us.
As the situation has changed, we cannot just hope to go back in time by refusing to accommodate the new situations. Excluding gay couples from marriage was just natural in the 1950s, as gay couples were generally closeted and excluded from every sphere of society. Excluding gay couples from marriage in the 2010s when they clearly live normal, integrated lives amongst us is rightly seen as a form of apartheid by many young people. Withholding rights and respect from gay people in the 1950s was just natural, as it was accepted that they have a deviant and criminal lifestyle choice. Withholding rights and respect from gay people in the 2010s feels like an injustice to many people, because it is hating people for who they are. In the 1950s marriage was a society-wide brand even as it excluded gay couples, because gay couples were out-of-sight, out-of-mind anyway. In the 2010s, if marriage excludes gay couples, it is by definition no longer a society-wide brand, and therefore would be seen to be very optional even amongst straight couples. In general, if we continue to hold the line that marriage should exclude gay couples, marriage itself is being demeaned in the eyes of many people, particularly younger people. This is clearly not a good way to encourage family values.
A re-implementation of the 1950s playbook is not feasible. The 1950s never will be again. But what we can hope for is a future implementation of family values that will make the whole concept popular society-wide again. Marriage equality is part of the work that will get us there. It renews the idea that marriage should be a society-wide brand, and that it is about family and commitment, rather than exclusion. Without embracing marriage equality, the public image of marriage can never be healthy enough for us to successfully then embark on further campaigns of marriage promotion and public conversations on marriage, which are what will bring in a new golden age for family values.
The Conservative Case for Marriage Equality
By the time this is being written, there are many articles entitled 'The Conservative Case for Marriage Equality', written by many people. The points are now well established and repeated again and again by now. I am not going over all of those points again. I am going to provide a fresh perspective on the matter: my own perspective, from my deep study in recent years into the topic.
I want to talk about marriage itself first. We all need to recognise one thing: marriage is in crisis. Marriage rates have been declining for many years, and the decline has not halted unfortunately. If the trend is not reversed, I am afraid that many of us will live to see a time when marriage will have become a minority concern. It's a tough reality, but it's one that we need to face. In response to this phenomenon, there have been efforts on marriage promotion. However, these have been very limited in their success. Still, we keep doing it because it's the only hope to keep marriage alive. Just why marriage promotion is not working very well needs to be studied, and programs will need to be improved upon. I suspect that opponents painting marriage as outdated, hierarchical and elitist, amongst other things, have had at least some effect. I don't believe in any of that rubbish personally, but I know people who do. In the long run we need strategies to defeat comprehensively the 'liberation' ideology that has torpedoed marriage.
However, right now, perhaps more urgently, there is one clear threat to marriage promotion: that much of the younger generation are starting to see marriage as an exclusionary, bigoted institution. And whilst that may not mean they will all refuse to get married, I suspect few of them would be too happy to get on board marriage promotion when it is promoting an institution excluding and hurting their gay and lesbian friends, and in many cases, family members. When marriage clearly excludes gay and lesbian couples, every word of marriage promotion will hurt their feelings - this is literally true, and something that cannot be said any milder. As a result, marriage promotion will rightly be seen as a hurtful exercise by many young people. Even I, a supporter of marriage, have had trouble explaining to my friends that whilst I support marriage I don't support the exclusionary aspect of the marriage laws out there. I simply have given up on talking about the matter most of the time.
Another concern with marriage right now is the sky high divorce rates. A society with divorce rates above 40% really is not sustainable in the long run, I believe. The proposed solution is to restart a conversation about what marriage is and what the commitment means. I totally agree that this would help a lot. As a society, we should discuss and hopefully come to a conclusion that marriage is not just about love or adult desires, but is about the formation of families and providing for them a stable structure. However, it wouldn't work when people are using the 'what marriage really is' argument to exclude gay and lesbian people - again the important message would be lost in accusations of bigotry. A better way would be to allow gay and lesbian couples to get married as a matter of equal compassion and inclusion, which actually lets us then deal with the matter of what marriage is, without all the noise. Including gay and lesbian couples, who are by definition infertile couples, would not really distract from the idea of marriage being for procreation and for the stability of families resulting from the procreation act, any more than allowing heterosexual childless or infertile couples to marry (as we currently do) would. In reality, being rigid rarely works. I believe it would make perfect sense to say that marriage was meant to help couples set up family by encouraging procreation and then providing a stable structure for the resulting family, but being an inclusive society, we also extend this institution to cover those couples who unfortunately cannot procreate but are living in similarly committed arrangements.
The gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage and a family life, even if they do not have children to raise, are actively seeking to join the age old tradition of marriage and commitment. They have actively rejected the 'liberation' movement, which has promised them a life of endless hedonism, lots of sexual freedom and no institutions to rule their lives by. Just like us, they have chosen to reject the postmodern promise of endless freedom and have chosen to embrace instead the tradition of commitment and family values. Not many people out there are aware of this, but for choosing to side with tradition they often face the ridicule, disdain and outright discouragement of more 'liberation' orientated gay and lesbian people. For choosing to adopt our values and join our lifestyle, they have been derided as asssimilationists, people who are ashamed of who they are and seek conservative society's approval at all costs. We, the people who embrace family values, are their natural home. To reject them here too would be far too cruel and indeed inconsistent with our compassionate family values. To reject them would also be to confirm that their critics are right, that being gay means you cannot embrace family values, that you must embrace 'liberationism'. I really don't think that is the right message to send.
The fact that gay and lesbian couples are actively rejecting 'liberation' and embracing the tradition of marriage is another thing we should take heart to, and may even be able to use as a starting point for a general return to family values in society. The fact that gay and lesbian couples, who live in a culture where just a decade or so ago 'liberation' was the norm, have come to reject it so decisively, can be a great conversation starter for a wider societal discussion on marriage and family values, and why they represent a superior lifestyle to 'liberation'. Again, it is an opportunity we can only take if we first embrace the idea of marriage equality first.
Finally, many people, especially in the younger generations, are supportive of marriage equality as an idea. However, they are nowhere as passionate and committed as me in seeing this reform get done. The difference is because I believe in the essential conservative values of commitment, the importance of marriage, and the importance of family values for the future of our humanity, beliefs that have become too rare in our generation. Marriage equality will not fix all the problems surrounding marriage and family in our society, but it is where we must all begin. Sending the wrong message on this matter means not just that gay couples suffer - it gives a huge boost to our opponents in our long running battle for hearts and minds. This is why marriage equality cannot wait - it is an urgent priority. Ten years down the track, we may have lost a very good opportunity to change things indeed.
I want to talk about marriage itself first. We all need to recognise one thing: marriage is in crisis. Marriage rates have been declining for many years, and the decline has not halted unfortunately. If the trend is not reversed, I am afraid that many of us will live to see a time when marriage will have become a minority concern. It's a tough reality, but it's one that we need to face. In response to this phenomenon, there have been efforts on marriage promotion. However, these have been very limited in their success. Still, we keep doing it because it's the only hope to keep marriage alive. Just why marriage promotion is not working very well needs to be studied, and programs will need to be improved upon. I suspect that opponents painting marriage as outdated, hierarchical and elitist, amongst other things, have had at least some effect. I don't believe in any of that rubbish personally, but I know people who do. In the long run we need strategies to defeat comprehensively the 'liberation' ideology that has torpedoed marriage.
However, right now, perhaps more urgently, there is one clear threat to marriage promotion: that much of the younger generation are starting to see marriage as an exclusionary, bigoted institution. And whilst that may not mean they will all refuse to get married, I suspect few of them would be too happy to get on board marriage promotion when it is promoting an institution excluding and hurting their gay and lesbian friends, and in many cases, family members. When marriage clearly excludes gay and lesbian couples, every word of marriage promotion will hurt their feelings - this is literally true, and something that cannot be said any milder. As a result, marriage promotion will rightly be seen as a hurtful exercise by many young people. Even I, a supporter of marriage, have had trouble explaining to my friends that whilst I support marriage I don't support the exclusionary aspect of the marriage laws out there. I simply have given up on talking about the matter most of the time.
Another concern with marriage right now is the sky high divorce rates. A society with divorce rates above 40% really is not sustainable in the long run, I believe. The proposed solution is to restart a conversation about what marriage is and what the commitment means. I totally agree that this would help a lot. As a society, we should discuss and hopefully come to a conclusion that marriage is not just about love or adult desires, but is about the formation of families and providing for them a stable structure. However, it wouldn't work when people are using the 'what marriage really is' argument to exclude gay and lesbian people - again the important message would be lost in accusations of bigotry. A better way would be to allow gay and lesbian couples to get married as a matter of equal compassion and inclusion, which actually lets us then deal with the matter of what marriage is, without all the noise. Including gay and lesbian couples, who are by definition infertile couples, would not really distract from the idea of marriage being for procreation and for the stability of families resulting from the procreation act, any more than allowing heterosexual childless or infertile couples to marry (as we currently do) would. In reality, being rigid rarely works. I believe it would make perfect sense to say that marriage was meant to help couples set up family by encouraging procreation and then providing a stable structure for the resulting family, but being an inclusive society, we also extend this institution to cover those couples who unfortunately cannot procreate but are living in similarly committed arrangements.
The gay and lesbian couples seeking marriage and a family life, even if they do not have children to raise, are actively seeking to join the age old tradition of marriage and commitment. They have actively rejected the 'liberation' movement, which has promised them a life of endless hedonism, lots of sexual freedom and no institutions to rule their lives by. Just like us, they have chosen to reject the postmodern promise of endless freedom and have chosen to embrace instead the tradition of commitment and family values. Not many people out there are aware of this, but for choosing to side with tradition they often face the ridicule, disdain and outright discouragement of more 'liberation' orientated gay and lesbian people. For choosing to adopt our values and join our lifestyle, they have been derided as asssimilationists, people who are ashamed of who they are and seek conservative society's approval at all costs. We, the people who embrace family values, are their natural home. To reject them here too would be far too cruel and indeed inconsistent with our compassionate family values. To reject them would also be to confirm that their critics are right, that being gay means you cannot embrace family values, that you must embrace 'liberationism'. I really don't think that is the right message to send.
The fact that gay and lesbian couples are actively rejecting 'liberation' and embracing the tradition of marriage is another thing we should take heart to, and may even be able to use as a starting point for a general return to family values in society. The fact that gay and lesbian couples, who live in a culture where just a decade or so ago 'liberation' was the norm, have come to reject it so decisively, can be a great conversation starter for a wider societal discussion on marriage and family values, and why they represent a superior lifestyle to 'liberation'. Again, it is an opportunity we can only take if we first embrace the idea of marriage equality first.
Finally, many people, especially in the younger generations, are supportive of marriage equality as an idea. However, they are nowhere as passionate and committed as me in seeing this reform get done. The difference is because I believe in the essential conservative values of commitment, the importance of marriage, and the importance of family values for the future of our humanity, beliefs that have become too rare in our generation. Marriage equality will not fix all the problems surrounding marriage and family in our society, but it is where we must all begin. Sending the wrong message on this matter means not just that gay couples suffer - it gives a huge boost to our opponents in our long running battle for hearts and minds. This is why marriage equality cannot wait - it is an urgent priority. Ten years down the track, we may have lost a very good opportunity to change things indeed.
The Other Side of the Entertainment Industry - There's Plenty of Hope Still
The Hollywood shock value scene is getting more disgusting by the minute. It's in the performances, it's in the music videos, it's even in the lyrics of some songs. My 'boycott list' is growing larger by the year. Fortunately, there are still plenty of artists who would never do things like that.
Taylor Swift is perhaps one of the best examples of a genuine artist who doesn't get involved in the crazy side of Hollywood, and Demi Lovato wants to follow in her footsteps.
“She's like, 'Well, I don’t go out.' I don’t go out to clubs and I don’t party and to me, it says more when you don’t have to do things for shock value. You're more respected as an artist. And that’s what I want to be, I want to be respected as an artist and not a tabloid headline," Demi told Entertainment Weekly recently.
I think being real and having decency standards are a large part of Taylor Swift's popularity. In this regard, Demi Lovato is definitely on the right track. I am pleased to see that she will continue to follow this path faithfully into the future.
Taylor Swift is perhaps one of the best examples of a genuine artist who doesn't get involved in the crazy side of Hollywood, and Demi Lovato wants to follow in her footsteps.
“She's like, 'Well, I don’t go out.' I don’t go out to clubs and I don’t party and to me, it says more when you don’t have to do things for shock value. You're more respected as an artist. And that’s what I want to be, I want to be respected as an artist and not a tabloid headline," Demi told Entertainment Weekly recently.
I think being real and having decency standards are a large part of Taylor Swift's popularity. In this regard, Demi Lovato is definitely on the right track. I am pleased to see that she will continue to follow this path faithfully into the future.
Free Market Principles Applied in Cultural Matters
It is a well settled fact that the government should not be heavily intervening in the free market economy. This is a point now accepted by left and right alike. Whilst the left may have a different view of fairness than the right, both agree that we should not have sky high tariffs, that we generally would not have government monopolies in most industries, and that intervention is only justified when they serve a clear purpose of preserving a free and fair playing field. Both sides agree that businesses in the market economy should be able to trade and innovate freely in general. Both sides agree that intrusive governmental intervention is clumsy and anti-freedom, is anti progress, and benefits nobody.
I believe the same standard should apply to cultural matters. Some regulation is required to maintain a free and fair playing field for everyone. For example, we need to have law and order, and some (including myself) would argue that we also need antidiscrimination laws and gun control. But all those things are based on a clear need to protect a free and fair playing field, and do not otherwise stifle innovation. Here, both left and right should reject heavy handed, intrusive regulation – like banning certain lifestyle choices, or banning gay adoption, for example, no matter how they feel about the subject personally, unless there is a clear consensus on the need for it, backed up by clear evidence, and in the service of freedom and fairness. Of course, I also believe unwarranted government monopolies, for example in the area of marriage, should also be abolished.
It is possible and desirable to have the same set of principles, based on freedom, for both the social and economic spheres. It is time we start thinking this way.
I believe the same standard should apply to cultural matters. Some regulation is required to maintain a free and fair playing field for everyone. For example, we need to have law and order, and some (including myself) would argue that we also need antidiscrimination laws and gun control. But all those things are based on a clear need to protect a free and fair playing field, and do not otherwise stifle innovation. Here, both left and right should reject heavy handed, intrusive regulation – like banning certain lifestyle choices, or banning gay adoption, for example, no matter how they feel about the subject personally, unless there is a clear consensus on the need for it, backed up by clear evidence, and in the service of freedom and fairness. Of course, I also believe unwarranted government monopolies, for example in the area of marriage, should also be abolished.
It is possible and desirable to have the same set of principles, based on freedom, for both the social and economic spheres. It is time we start thinking this way.
Decentralising the Control of our Traditions
We have come to a crossroads in how the traditions of our collective heritage is to be maintained. Rapid changes in the way we see the world and changes in our knowledge of the world have challenged our traditions, and our traditions have had to adapt quickly.
As to just how they should adapt, that was a question that divided us. It caused some of the most famous 'cultural war' battles in our recent history. Amidst all this confusion, a sector of our society decided to just stick to what we knew, as if these changes in circumstances never happened. They claimed the conservative tradition for themselves, and went unchallenged for some time. But it appears they don't have the answers at all. As the years go by, it has become ridiculous to maintain a worldview that is based upon evolution being untrue, being gay being a choice, and only the traditional interpretation of the religion you grew up in being the source of all the answers to the world.
Young people are leaving tradition behind, and many are doing it wholesale. Values like commitment, decency, and valuing the family are in danger of being left behind. Yet a new way of preserving the best of our traditions whilst adjusting old rules to new knowledge and circumstances have arisen. It would appear that this would rescue our great traditions, but then we are fighting over the politics over it, and squandering all the goodwill. David Cameron may be right about embracing marriage equality to promote the institution, but for every Cameron there are plenty of people like Tony Abbott, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, who remain too stubborn to listen. Implementing this cure via political means is going to be disappointing, clearly.
Tradition needs to become a decentralised thing. Rather than being administered by government or specific authority bodies, we need to own it as individuals, and give it our best shot at interpreting it in the circumstances of the modern world whilst maintaining its spirit. And politics should just give way to allow this to happen. Over time, the best adaptations will win in a free market of ideas.
As to just how they should adapt, that was a question that divided us. It caused some of the most famous 'cultural war' battles in our recent history. Amidst all this confusion, a sector of our society decided to just stick to what we knew, as if these changes in circumstances never happened. They claimed the conservative tradition for themselves, and went unchallenged for some time. But it appears they don't have the answers at all. As the years go by, it has become ridiculous to maintain a worldview that is based upon evolution being untrue, being gay being a choice, and only the traditional interpretation of the religion you grew up in being the source of all the answers to the world.
Young people are leaving tradition behind, and many are doing it wholesale. Values like commitment, decency, and valuing the family are in danger of being left behind. Yet a new way of preserving the best of our traditions whilst adjusting old rules to new knowledge and circumstances have arisen. It would appear that this would rescue our great traditions, but then we are fighting over the politics over it, and squandering all the goodwill. David Cameron may be right about embracing marriage equality to promote the institution, but for every Cameron there are plenty of people like Tony Abbott, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, who remain too stubborn to listen. Implementing this cure via political means is going to be disappointing, clearly.
Tradition needs to become a decentralised thing. Rather than being administered by government or specific authority bodies, we need to own it as individuals, and give it our best shot at interpreting it in the circumstances of the modern world whilst maintaining its spirit. And politics should just give way to allow this to happen. Over time, the best adaptations will win in a free market of ideas.
Marriage Privatization Just a Name Change? It's Much More!
Marriage privatization, as a term, simply means that there should be no references to the word 'marriage' in law. There have been many approaches suggested, but I would suggest going for the most conservative method: changing 'marriage' to 'civil union' in law, and perhaps also reforming the law to give equal rights to non-registered cohabiting couples as is already the case in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
This approach has been criticised for just swapping one term for another. But it's a matter of perspective. Marriage will always be a popular cultural institution, and civil unions will always be only a legal institution rather than a cultural one, I believe. After all, you don't say 'please civil union me' or 'we are civilly united', as marriage equality activists have pointed out. Therefore, the terminology change causes the government regulation to become more separated from the cultural and historical institution.
In my model, marriage will be the institution people enter into to create families, and will be maintained by the couple and their surrounding community. Civil unions will be the legal contract governments administer, as a tool to help marriages. Governments now control something that can assist marriages rather than the marriage itself here, a very important difference.
This change can have a profound effect on things. For example, we can have a simple and non-bitter process for ending the civil union, but culturally we can still view that marriage shouldn't end unless there is significant problems. The divorce rate wouldn't have skyrocketed after the no-fault reforms if this approach had been taken, I believe.
Or take the marriage equality thing. Rather than having a politics heavy campaign that feels top-down that 'redefines marriage' in our opponents' eyes, it would have been a cultural change that started from everyday life. The acceptance of these unions as a part of normal everyday life will finally demanded the government's equal treatment through provision of equal civil union rights. And we may have had it done long ago if we could go that route instead.
This approach has been criticised for just swapping one term for another. But it's a matter of perspective. Marriage will always be a popular cultural institution, and civil unions will always be only a legal institution rather than a cultural one, I believe. After all, you don't say 'please civil union me' or 'we are civilly united', as marriage equality activists have pointed out. Therefore, the terminology change causes the government regulation to become more separated from the cultural and historical institution.
In my model, marriage will be the institution people enter into to create families, and will be maintained by the couple and their surrounding community. Civil unions will be the legal contract governments administer, as a tool to help marriages. Governments now control something that can assist marriages rather than the marriage itself here, a very important difference.
This change can have a profound effect on things. For example, we can have a simple and non-bitter process for ending the civil union, but culturally we can still view that marriage shouldn't end unless there is significant problems. The divorce rate wouldn't have skyrocketed after the no-fault reforms if this approach had been taken, I believe.
Or take the marriage equality thing. Rather than having a politics heavy campaign that feels top-down that 'redefines marriage' in our opponents' eyes, it would have been a cultural change that started from everyday life. The acceptance of these unions as a part of normal everyday life will finally demanded the government's equal treatment through provision of equal civil union rights. And we may have had it done long ago if we could go that route instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The important question is whether the ‘populist right’ can co-exist alongside liberals in a healthy democratic system. I honestly don't ...
-
An often missed aspect of the increasing association between masculinity and the right Much has been said about the supposed gender wars of ...
-
Many people I know have been complaining about how governments around the world are not doing enough to address climate change, and how West...
