Gay-marriage opponents off target
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that amending the Constitution to ban gay marriages is really a form of homeland security.
“The future of our country hangs in the balance,” he said before this ploy by his Republican leadership went down in defeat Wednesday, “because the future of marriage hangs in the balance.”
Oh, dear.
This is a new concept for me. I agree that the traditional institution of marriage is under an assault more ferocious than the 1,000-year storm we just saw in New Jersey, and that this assault is not a welcome development. Since the finest research – and every bit of common sense – tells us that children do best when raised in happy, stable, two-parent marriages, civil society has a vested interest in promoting an institution that helps create a good outcome for the next generation.
But we don’t know whether gay marriage will wreck the institution with all the force of a terrorist attack, as the good senator implies, or strengthen it beyond our imagination.
So now that the push for the amendment is yesterday’s news, here’s what we can do to really defend marriage:
Follow the advice of such radicals as, oh, Lynne Cheney and leave it up to the states to decide what constitutes a marriage, a civil union, a domestic partnership, whatever. Massachusetts will go its way, Vermont will try another approach, and surely in Texas there’ll be something else again. States have long been the laboratory for social experimentation and can best weave the crazy quilt of regional and demographic differences that shape Americans’ attitudes on this complicated issue.
What flies in Provincetown may never get off the ground in Peoria. Thank goodness this is a big country.
While they’re at it, states should examine their divorce laws and procedures, because nothing has chipped away at the notion that marriage is forever as much as the social acceptability and legal ease of leaving it. How marriage defenders can harp on gay unions and ignore no-fault divorce is one of the great mysteries of this debate.
Just as important is to encourage couples to marry before they have children and dismantle the barriers that stop them from doing so. Gay people are a small percentage of the population, probably in the single digits. But the number of children born out of wedlock in 2002 was 34 percent – up from 5.3 percent in 1960 – and among black children the percentage was a disastrous 68.2 percent.
These trends are devastating marriage; so is the increasingly prevalent notion is that it exists on a separate planet from child-rearing, as if a child’s need for the commitment, stability, support and love of two bonded parents is as easily discarded as an old TV.
We can blame popular culture for some of this, but only some. For decades, everything from welfare regulations to economic policies has made it harder and less attractive for people, especially men, to marry, especially in poor communities. That’s possible to turn around: Minnesota, for instance, found that offering income supplements to poor, working families stabilized marriage and reduced domestic violence.
Defend marriage? Help dad get a job.
It is curious to see the gay marriage ban framed as a homeland security issue when so many other social ills – child poverty, wage stagnation, the appalling number of Americans without health insurance – have been forced to the back of the line while the war machine gobbles up the budget.
Defending marriage does help defend the nation because the health and strength of our society under gird the democratic process that is the real target of our enemies. Last I heard, gay marriage wasn’t high on the list of our most pressing security threats. I guess Sen. Santorum has access to better intelligence.