Dear Marriage Supporter,
The guys at Oxford University Press are no dummies. When they needed someone to make the case against same-sex marriage as part of a Point/Counterpoint series, edited by James Sterba of Notre Dame, they went straight to the top: to one of the best, the brightest and most articulate spokespeople for marriage in America.
They asked NOM's own co-founder, Maggie Gallagher, to spar with Prof. John Corvino (who co-authored the book and writes the pro-gay marriage arguments).
The resulting book, Debating Same-Sex Marriage was released this week, and today I'm heading up to Manhattan to watch the book launch. Live from New York: It's Maggie Gallagher and John Corvino "Debating Same-Sex Marriage." The two of them will be "Conversing" (with a capital C) with David Blankenhorn on the marriage debate: what it means, why it is hard, and why it matters.
You can watch it with me live-streamed here at 6 p.m.
If you go to Amazon you can read for yourself the extraordinary praise for Debating Same-Sex Marriage, and for our own Maggie Gallagher, from some of the smartest people in America: Mary Ann Glendon, Prof. Robby George, John Eastman.
Fair warning: You will also hear from Dan Savage who doesn't like Maggie very much. He actually awards Prof. Corvino "A Gay Medal of Honor" for so patiently responding to Maggie's "bad and sometimes infuriatingly insulting arguments."
This is probably the only book in the history of civilization to be endorsed by both Dan Savage and Sen. Rick Santorum.
Go to Amazon if you want to read the full praise, but here's a taste of what Sen. Santorum has to say.
"Maggie Gallagher is a hero to many of us who care about life, marriage and religious liberty. She is lucid, honest, compassionate, fearless and above all relentlessly reasonable in making the case for marriage..."
I say Amen to that!
Every time I read what Maggie writes, I learn something new, something I didn't know—and I emerge feeling stronger, better equipped and more hopeful, with renewed energy for the fight. I know you will too!
A few highlights that may help you:
Fidelity, she establishes, is a key marital norm. She then lays out the detailed evidence that sexual fidelity is not very common in gay male unions, and then she does something I've never seen anyone do before. It's vintage Maggie.
She asks a question nobody else asks: "Does sexual fidelity play the same role in same-sex unions?" The same, in other words, as it does for marriages?
For husbands and wives, sexual fidelity points to all the goods of marriage: it protects our children, it protects the unity of the family, it points to marital satisfaction and it is a key ingredient in marital permanence. The norm of fidelity makes sense. Adultery is a violation of the essence of marriage, and tears at the fabric that holds it, and civilization, together.
"The radical challenge to marriage from gay marriage is not that gay men are by nature promiscuous, as some have argued. ...The more fundamental and radical challenge is that for gay men, sexual fidelity may not point to or support permanence or relationship satisfaction in the same way it does for opposite-sex relationships," Maggie writes.
She then lays out, point by point, the devastating evidence that "marriage equality" is based on a myth; same-sex unions are not just like opposite-sex ones, and not only in terms of their ability to create new life and connect those children to their mom and dad.
"Sexual infidelity doesn't work very well for opposite-sex unions because male sexual jealousy is a powerful disruptive force, because women tend to fall in love with ongoing sex partners, and of course because children regularly result," Maggie writes. "Men in same-sex relationships, by contrast, frequently find sexual novelty with outside partners helps them sustain their core domestic affection."
Men cannot tolerate the idea of another man being with their wife. Gay men do not have this same problem. "This alone," Maggie writes, "is a powerful signal that in fact same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are dramatically different kinds of sexual unions."
Marriage and its norms grow out of the experience of sustaining long term unions of men and women that give rise to children.
"Marriage equality," she writes, "institutionalized in law and culture will exert continuous ongoing pressure to sideline marital norms that do not work for both kinds of couples equally."
They will cease to become "norms" in other words and become mere preferences, things individuals work out on their own.
We've seen how badly children and society fare as we progressively "de-norm" sex and marriage.
The most fundamental reason to oppose same-sex marriage, she argues, is not that gay marriage will have consequence. Yes it will, and she tells us how and how much!
If the law endorses the idea that same-sex unions are marriages on the grounds that equality requires it, then people who continue to believe that marriage is a union between a husband and wife that can give children a mother and father will be treated the same way we would treat someone who believes that only a marriage between people of the same race is a marriage. That's what "marriage equality" means.
For the record: I am not complaining that Corvino or anyone else has [said] something mean or uncivil about me....I am asking gay marriage advocates to own up to the truth that this is in fact what "marriage equality" means.
This is important, but it is not the most important reason to fight gay marriage. The most important reason is because it is not true. Gay unions are not marriages.
"Marriage equality" is based on a lie about human beings, and commits our government to supporting and enforcing this lie, to propping up a political ideology against human nature.
"John Corvino," she writes "makes a claim that is truly astonishing, the claim that really goes to the heart of our disagreement." Corvino writes of a "wedding" between two men, "Were it not for the absence of a bride, you'd have a hard time distinguishing the scene from any other wedding."
Maggie says, "My jaw drops when I read and reread this sentence." (Mine too!)
You cannot simply take the woman out of the wedding and proceed as if nothing significant has been removed. Take the woman out of the wedding, and you take out the link between the generations, the sense that in the moment we stand at the crossroads of history, that we are in this couples' act of marriage recreating that moment from which we come, while forging a link to the future. Marriage is the key link in the great chain of being. That is what you lose when you take the woman out of the wedding.
The truth of marriage is that it is not a mere plaything of politics, created of, by and for the politicians. It has a reality that government is obligated to respect and protect, not violate and redefine.
"When a man vows to take his masculinity, his sexuality, and put it at the service of a woman and her children, to channel his sexual nature to make it pleasing in a woman's eyes, to make his manhood good for a woman and her children—he becomes a husband," she says.
"Take the woman out of the wedding and marriage is no longer a universal human institution, necessary to the future of the whole society, indeed of all humanity. Cut off from its deep roots in human natures, marriage loses its past, and quite possibly, its future."
Wow. If you want to read more—and I urge you to do so—you can get a copy here or ask for it at your local book store.
The truth: Marriage doesn't go away and it cannot merely be redefined by power alone. Too many gay marriage advocates want to shut down this debate, punish dissent, and get on with the business of using the power of our government, the beloved United States of America, to impose this strange new public morality called gay marriage.
We've seen it this week when the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals contemptuously refused even to listen to the arguments of supporters of Prop 8, letting stand the ruling of a divided three judge panel that struck down Prop 8.
The fierce and scathing dissent of Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain is bracing to read, especially for those of us who spent our time and our treasure fighting to put Prop 8 on the ballot and persuading our fellow citizens to exercise their core civil right to vote for it:
Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority's gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it. We should not have so roundly trumped California's democratic process without at least discussing this unparalleled decision as an en banc court.
We've won so many amazing victories only because Truth matters. It has a power beyond the reach of bureaucrats or lawyers or angry activists. In the privacy of the voting booth, Americans have again and again demonstrated that they know the truth about what marriage is, and what it is not.
This week in the state of Washington we had another amazing demonstration of the power of marriage. Preserve Marriage Washington just turned in 241,000 signatures to put gay marriage to the trial of the ballot box. This is historic. This is sweeping. Washington is a state where the referendum is frequently used, but the number of signatures that were collected broke all records.
Truth matters. People care about marriage.
You and I know this. And we know that in the end we will be accountable to a loving and just God for how we fought, or failed to fight, to protect His creation.
Thank you for all you've done to make the good fight possible.
Please pray for Maggie and for everyone at the front lines of this marriage fight.
Until next week, keep up the fight!
This message has been authorized and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20006, Brian Brown, President. This message has not been authorized or approved by any candidate.
20 Comments
"When a man vows to take his masculinity, his sexuality, and put it at the service of a woman and her children, to channel his sexual nature to make it pleasing in a woman's eyes, to make his manhood good for a woman and her children—he becomes a husband,"
Wow! Who said that? (Now we're talking heterosexual love!)
It is clear Maggie knows what a real marriage is. This must be codified into civil marriage law in order to help confused homosexuals understand what a marriage is.
Yes, Good News, what Maggie said about the definition of "husband" is so true, and beautiful!
I was fortunate enough to attend the discussion in person. As anyone who heard it knows, Maggie and John are people who--though they hold deep disagreements--expressed a desire to elevate the ssm discussion.
And they did. Both were courteous, and painstakingly avoided misrepresenting each other's arguments, or attributing notoriously bad ones to each other.
Needless to say, John is at a higher level of discussion than most of the pro-ssm trolls on this blog and other forums, and so he was refreshing to hear.
But no one's mind changed after writing the book.
I guess we could say that both authors remained entrenched, but possibly gave better arguments to their respective sides by doing this project.
I join Bryan and Maggie in shock that removing the bride from the depicted wedding is such a casual thing to ssm advocates. "It was just like any other wedding, but without the bride."
Actually, it's hard for me to even think there is such a thing as a wedding with no bride. One of the biggest focal points of a wedding is the bridal march. There are songs created specifically for announcing the bride's arrival; and, of course, she is the last person to arrive at the altar, traditionally, after a flower girl sprinkles the aisle.
Note that I'm just thinking about the wedding details, while Maggie lays out the social messages of a wedding without a bride!
This just shows how widely different the thought patterns of marriage supporters and SSMers are. Perhaps this is why we all can't seem to agree that it's wrong to blithely efface the origins of children by creating them with anonymous donors, etc.
The wedding with no bride rung Maggie's bell, but both authors have pet peeves.
John had his bell rung too when Maggie spoke about ssm and the inversion of the natural order. He said that this could raise feelings of inferiority in gay people, based on things they might've heard for all of their lives.
Nevertheless, Maggie persisted in mentioning the unmentionables, and she did a great job handling the "what about children raised by same-sex couples?" question.
I particularly love what she said about how marriage in the gay community is viewed as a right, not a norm. It is seen as something to promote societal respect for homosexuality; not as something to really embrace in their own personal practices.
There were many good points, but Maggie was powerful and eloquent with that one especially.
Though these two speakers are attempting to raise the level of discussion--and they most certainly have--I'm still left with the reality that there isn't much substance to the case for ssm.
Ash
"Needless to say, John is at a higher level of discussion than most of the pro-ssm trolls on this blog and other forums, and so he was refreshing to hear."
Do you think those on your side (as represented in these comments) are paragons of civility? Do you think your condescending tone and name-calling will encourage anyone on either side to be more respectful?
Bruce:
It is exceedingly rare for a pro-SS"M" argument to be made on the merits here.
Typically, screeching, almost comically over-the-top agitprop is more the order of the day.
Of course, if the quality of opposition here were to substantially improve, I expect such a thing would be reciprocated.
Rick, perhaps you should try to be the better man, rather than "lowering" yourself to our level, then, hm?
On a side note, if Maggie can use the term marriage equality, y'all can too.
@Bryce
"On a side note, if Maggie can use the term marriage equality, y'all can too."
I prefer "same-sex marriage" just to clarify where I stand on the issue. Frequently using the term "marriage equality" would imply I support the redefinition of marriage, which I don't.
Marriage equality?
But we already have that.
I think it better to truthfully report the actual nature of the case........perhaps "pseudo-marriage".
That's what marriage does; it makes a man and woman equal. Changing the meaning of marriage by including a reference to same-gender sex partners corrupts marriage.
Even better. Lets get away from the word marriage, lets caall it for whgat it is, " same sex coupling" period. Or, "meaningless unions", because they serve no real purpose to society or any nation.
"
Biast start :
John's for “marriage EQUALITY”. I don't even know what that is, but it sounds good.
Maggie wants to “STOP gay marriage”. Wanting to stop marriage, doesn't sound good.
Reality:
John wants to take away the word marriage, and use it for something else!
Maggie want to save the word marriage, for the thing it names would still exist even without the word, and so would go nameless.
http://www.centerforpublicconversation.org/events/live/20120607.php
@ Ash
1) Of course there is no substance in validating the use of the word marriage for same-sex (or sex-irrelevant) couples. I understand that the society just wants everybody to be nice to each other, and not “create feelings of inferiority in gay people”. But the fact that two people of the same sex cannot become the human species in its completed form, nor reproduce itself, is not a measure of “superiority” or “inferiority”, but only a natural observation. And one that must be singled out in the society for the healthy growth of our children. The opposite sex couple only takes on the aspect of “superiority” when the same sex couple feels that these limitations that are inherent to their union is brought about by national laws, rather than natural ones. Also we want to be “nice” to the children and not make them feel “inferior” because they do not have one or the other sex in their parents. But this “nice” idea is a problem. For we are asking the whole society to put on a collective lie for the kids, in trying to impart to them that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between men and women. And doing so by trying to change natural laws by changing national laws. Lying about such a fundamental truths of human life can not be healthy for the child, his future nor that of the societies.
2) The difficulty of a format like this book is that we are putting the kidnapper, and the one being blackmailed, on the same footing of legitimacy.
The one holding hostage the word marriage. With the real threat of destroying the original, and cherished by billions, meaning of the word if not given what one wants. So the one being blackmailed is forced to grovel with the criminal. Giving the air that the kidnapper is as justified in his position as the one being blackmailed.
3) To free ourselves from the tyranny of this heartless and vengeful kidnapper. A new, original and unique word is needed to be able to name the man-woman life long union. And yes, another new word will be needed as well to name the formal service that units these two people. For the words “marriage” and “wedding” are legitimate in being exclusive to man-woman. For there proper use are part of the developing child's psychological make, up when it comes to the most important things in his life. It helps him have clarity of goals, purpose and understanding of self. Handicapping the child by effacing the efficacy of these words (and others) is not doing our children justice, (whether they of parents of opposite sex of same sex).
"he difficulty of a format like this book is that we are putting the kidnapper, and the one being blackmailed, on the same footing of legitimacy."
Bingo.
However, Maggie is working at the level of discourse where the vestigial Socratic method is still (at least in principle) honored; that is to say, it is permissible to assume an initial equality of two opposed assertions, in order to establish the circumstances whereby a dialogue can expose the respective flaws, and a truthful outcome accessible to all who uphold right reason.
On the political level, dealing with Alinskyite D-Leaguers such as the current woeful crop of SS"M" defenders here, of course it is essential to recognize that neither logic, reason, or natural law is so much as acknowledged by our opposition, who are after power via well-established propaganda techniques involving the redefinition of words.
… thanks Maggie... very helpful.
What hard work.
Would have been better if both people where heterosexual (or both homosexual). For the hetero homo combo gives it the burlesque, lack of respect touch. Rather than expressing the complete and utter importance that this issue is to society.
Don't doubt yourself, you are on the side of truth and societal good. I know your doing all you can.
@Bruce, some comments I agree with from my side, some I disagree with. If you feel that there are NOM supporters here who lack civility, then I can rightly assume that you found Maggie’s discourse with John to be a breath of fresh air, as did I!
Funny note: one guy sitting in front of me at the event actually said that he likes Maggie on a personal level after hearing her speak last night, and he found this a little scary.
I don’t see any condescension in my post, nor did I mean to come off in that way.
As for name-calling, yes, I do find some of the pro-ssm posters here to be trolls, and I’ve run into trolls on other forums. It’s not a personal insult, as in they are deformed creatures living under a bridge. It’s merely the way I view their internet practices.
I was not branding all SSMers who comment here. But if this is not obvious, perhaps I should have said: “John is at a higher level of discourse than most pro-ssm people who visit this page, many of whom are trolls.”
@Good News, I don’t believe that it’s wrong to have civil dialogue on this issue. Although I strongly oppose efforts to redefine marriage, I don’t see it as a bad thing for Maggie to co-author a book with an ssm supporter and politely discuss differences. I think that’s a good thing.
What I find to be more threatening is when SSMers skip the step of civil debate and attempt to attribute malice to their opponents, and embrace the idea that no one can legitimately oppose them because they are advocating for their “rights.” Incidentally, Professor Corvino said that “rights talk” is not his style, and that he doesn’t believe that ssm opponents want to hurt gay people, though they might be repulsed by homosexuality.
So, even though we agree that there is no substance to the ssm argument, I don’t see Maggie’s work with John as a negative. I wouldn’t want anyone to say that about our position: that sitting and having a polite discussion with us is to provide a platform to evil (though some already hold this view).
But I agree with the bulk of your post. This one from you is a notable quotable!
“The opposite sex couple only takes on the aspect of ‘superiority’ when the same sex couple feels that these limitations that are inherent to their union is brought about by national laws, rather than natural ones.”
My response to Bruce and Good News is in NOM Blog Land.
It will show up eventually.
I am beginning to wonder about that, Ash.
At least seven separate posts (including fruitless attempts at edits) have disappeared into Memoryhole over the last few days.
It is becoming somewhat frustrating, actually......
I’ve thought about why the system works as it does, Rick, and I’m left with no answers.
It can be annoying to have only some comments go through, but I guess it’s better than leaving the page without any administration.
I'd like to know the inner-workings of the NOM moderation system. There seem to be certain times when several commenters complain about their posts getting caught up in the filter. And then there are certain threads where only a few people are able to comment, while the comments of others are posted days later.
And, of course, there is no common theme as to why the comments are eaten in this way. We can't say it's length, because short comments are eaten. There is nothing that helps to explain the moderation policy.
The more I think about it, the less it makes sense. But I still enjoy the blog.
@Ash
I agree...I had some pretty nice responses to a few people here and they're held up in moderation which is strange because I said nothing derogatory.
@Ash
I agree...I had some pretty nice responses to a few people here and they're held up in moderation which is strange because I said nothing derogatory.