NOM BLOG

Category Archives: Debating Marriage

Sometimes There's Only One Right Word

The French writer Gustave Flaubert famously spent weeks sometimes pondering a single word looking for just the right one - what he called "le mot juste."

flaubert

Flaubert recognized that sometimes there really is only one perfect term to describe the essence of a particular thing. Well, there is one perfect word to describe our culture's dissonant approach to marriage and family, and that word is incoherent.

An article in yesterday's Washington Times reports that there is a growing concern about "irresponsible fatherhood" in our society: "Despite myriad efforts by fatherhood programs, too many men are ending up in multiple relationships, with multiple children from multiple mothers."

An expert quoted in the article suggests that men need to "advised... to 'slow down,' 'prepare for fatherhood,' realize that a mother and child are 'a package' and 'take time' to select a loving partner and future mother."

Erasing the First Amendment

But these efforts to address a very real concern are incoherent in a cultural context where powerful forces are pushing a radical agenda to redefine marriage and thereby necessarily redefine the roles of parents, making 'fatherhood' an expendable option and devaluing the unique services that men and women each provide in raising children.

To preserve and promote fatherhood requires first that we preserve and promote the true definition of marriage. Marriage is like a key-word for a cipher which, when you get it wrong, causes all the connected code-words to fall apart too. Fatherhood depends on the meaning of the unique and special union of one man and one woman.  And for that union, le mot juste is "marriage."

"The age of liberation from sexual roles and standards has also been an age of ever greater inequality."

A wonderful article from earlier this month in The Catholic World Report deserves to be read, studied, and shared by anyone who engages in conversation and debate over the definition of marriage.

The remarkable piece by James Kalb lays out in a compelling way how the standard for public discourse today - "the view that recently led the Supreme Court to treat restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples as an expression of intent to harm same-sex couples" - needs to be attacked and shifted to more solid ground [emphasis added]:

Pink-Blue-TowelsLiberal thought is entrenched as the basis for public discussion, and it doesn’t like the idea of a network of expectations and obligations to which people are subject other than those generated by state and market. What’s just, liberals believe, is for individuals to be free from all social pressure in their private lives as long as they perform their duties as employees, taxpayers, and citizens of a diverse, tolerant, and multicultural society. If people are pressured to act one way or another for some reason other than the needs of liberal institutions, that’s bigotry and discrimination, and eradicating it is one of the central duties of government.

However strong and entrenched that way of thinking is, it needs to be disputed and overthrown.

Kalb also explains in very clear terms the importance of the definition of marriage and why it matters so deeply:

Man-Woman-ChildIf marriage is to be something we can rely on, it can’t be a sentimental celebration or optional lifestyle choice whose content depends on the orientation and goals of the parties. It has to be understood as something definite that, simply because of what it is, has intrinsic functions that are basic to human life. To be itself, it must therefore be understood as a union of man and woman that accepts the natural consequences of such a union, and there have to be distinct understandings of men, women, the relations between the two, and what they owe and have a right to expect from each other.

Take some time to read and re-read the entire essay today.

What Can One Person Do?

One of the questions NOM always gets is, “What can one person do to make a difference?”  Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert got the same question at last weekend’s Values Voter Summit hosted by the Family Research Council.  Watch and listen to his simple 90-second response:

Redefining Marriage "Consistently Heedless of Logic"

Writing today in The Public Discourse, Matthew J. Franck probes "the prominence of [the] assault on reasoning itself" within the movement to redefine marriage:

Rather than say what marriage is—which anyone can see is an absolute prerequisite to saying whether "equality" demands its availability to partners never before thought capable of marrying—these advocates simply shout "marriage equality" ever more loudly, point to an array of "government benefits" linked to marital status, and make their desire for the thing substitute for an argument about what the thing is that they want.

You can read the rest of his article here.

M.Franck

The Difference Between a "Platform" and a "Forum"?

Providence College, a Roman Catholic higher education institution in Rhode Island, made news this week when it cancelled a planned speaking event for same-sex marriage advocate John Corvino.

The New York Times reports:

ProvidenceThe event at Providence College was initially planned as a solo lecture, though Mr. Corvino said he suggested that it be a debate and provided the names of several potential sparring partners. Last week, the organizers added Dana L. Dillon, a theologian at Providence College, to present a response.

But Dr. Lena, the provost, said in an interview late Monday night that the event was canceled because it was largely a platform for only one side, and that it could be rescheduled if it included a philosophy professor with experience arguing against gay marriage.

In cancelling the event, organizers cited a 2004 document from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops which stipulates that "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."

The point seems to be not that Dr. Corvino is unwelcome to engage the issue or provide his perspective at the college, but that this would need to be in the context of a balanced presentation that gives the Catholic Church's position alongside. What do you think? Is this a fair application by the college of Church discipline, or too cautious?

Grappling With the Arguments

Oregon PolitiChick State Director Maggie Wilson-Mars writes at the PolitiChicks blog about "The Very Real Slippery Slope of Gay Marriage." Wilson-Mars is a Mormon woman and a conservative with a homosexual son with whom she often argues about same-sex marriage - with him arguing against it, and her in favor.

Throughout her piece she is dismissive of many of the arguments in favor of traditional marriage that we here at NOM know are based in greater logic and evidence that she seems willing to credit them. Nonetheless, despite her reasoning and convictions in these matters, she wrote her article to admit that there's one argument that can't be so easily dismissed -- even though, ironically, it's the one most frequently waved off in our society: namely, the so-called "slippery slope." She writes:

Sweet CakesHere in Oregon, a bakery refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding. They will sell to anyone, but draw the line at providing wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. The community was outraged. Portland/Gresham is a liberal, pro-gay town and they weren’t having it. It caused such a ruckus that the Oregon Attorney General opened an investigation. [...]

A few days ago, the Oregon bakery ... decided to operate from home. The emails, messages, phone calls and threats are so bad they can’t take it. Remember, they’re still the focus of an investigation by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries into possible violation of the states discrimination laws. There’s no reassurance for churches, etc. if businesses are already being forced to participate in ceremonies that they are morally opposed to or face fines, attacks and shutdown. Just in my own personal life, I know many conservatives who have no problem with gay marriage itself, it’s just that supposedly non-existent slippery slope that rears that its ugly head time and time again. I can’t help but look into the future when I see things like bakeries getting investigated and terrorized.

Of course, just like we here at NOM have more evidence and reasons to support the arguments Mrs. Wilson-Mars rejects, we (sadly) have more proof of this danger that follows in the wake of marriage redefinition as well.

What is the Core of Marriage?

"Probably the most important thing to remember about [the marriage] debate is that it is framed in entirely the wrong way." -Sherif Girgis

Sherif Girgis, co-author of What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, is a Princeton graduate and Rhodes Scholar. At Australia's Campion College last month, Girgis gave a brilliant talk on the marriage debate, explaining that by framing the marriage debate in terms of “equality” and “freedom,” same-sex marriage advocates completely bypass a foundational question: what is marriage in the first place? For anyone who wants to learn how to more effectively speak about protecting marriage, check out the full video:

4 Factors of Marriage That Can Never Be Abandoned

Ryan Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow at Heritage and co-author of What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defenseprovides enlightening insight about the four key marital norms: the sexual complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence of marriage, and what happens when they are abandoned.

The Heritage Foundation:

...No-fault divorce was the first major trend to undermine a strong marriage culture. Now the effort to redefine marriage away from male-female complementarity has gone even further in abandoning the central characteristics of the institution. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?[2] Such developments will have high social costs.

Young CoupleIdeas and behaviors have consequences. The breakdown of the marriage culture since the 1960s made it possible in this generation to consider redefining marriage in the law to exclude sexual complementarity. And that redefinition may lead to further redefinition.

Indeed, these new concepts make marriage primarily about adult desire, with marriage understood primarily as an intense emotional relationship between (or among) consenting adults. This revisionism comes with significant social costs.

Redefining marriage to say that men and women are interchangeable, that “monogamish” relationships work just as well as monogamous relationships, that “throuples” are the same as couples, and that “wedlease” is preferable to wedlock will only lead to more broken homes, more broken hearts, and more intrusive government. Americans should reject such revisionism and work to restore the essentials that make marriage so important for societal welfare: sexual complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanency.

Marriage Connects More Than Just Men and Women; it Creates the Fabric of Society

At the heart of the marriage debate are two very different views of marriage. The view of most same-sex ‘marriage’ advocates is that marriage primarily satisfies the desires of the adults involved. On the other hand, the historical view is that marriage is a public good, not solely designed towards the satisfaction of adult desires. It is the place that children do best, and have the best chance of growing into the responsible citizens every society needs. In short, marriage is the fabric of society.

Today in the Public Discourse, Andrew T. Walker discusses marriage as it relates to community and kinship:

Family HistoryThe needs and goods of the political community define the reciprocal nature of natural marriage. The political community needs marriage because it is, according to James Q. Wilson, “a socially arranged solution for the problem of getting people to stay together and care for children that the mere desire for children, and the sex that makes children possible, does not solve.” Marriage also gives order (goods) by fashioning bonds of community that foster connection to family, neighborhood, and society.

When speaking about the uniquely child-centered nature of marriage, we need to be equally adamant that marriage is a socially-centered institution. While marriage is a good in itself, marriage’s ontological nature is intimately linked to its social purpose.

If we grant kinship’s centrality to marriage, same-sex relationships not only fail as to what constitutes a marriage, but same-sex relationships also fail the kinship test. Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships enacts a legal fiction that the organic contours of society neither intuitively recognize nor posit. Same-sex marriage does not contribute to the kinship model. If natural marriage bestows life in way that is socially-oriented and centrifugal, then we might say that same-sex marriage is centripetal. In same-sex marriage, the emotional, non-generative unions of adults become the center.

Read more on the Public Discourse here.

Revitalizing Marriage Requires Sacrifice, Effort

The National Review Online’s (NRO) Kathryn Lopez interviewed Hilary Towers, a developmental psychologist, about “how we can better support and protect marriage as a culture and in communities.” The resulting article, “A Guide to Saving Marriage,” provides some surprising and many insightful results.

A recurring theme from Towers is that successful marriages demand hard work: “Young people, in particular, deserve to hear the truth about what to expect from a vocation to married life at this time in history. It can be the most fulfilling, joyful part of your entire life, and yet it is so very hard! At some point (and for many couples, extended periods of time), it will hurt if you’re doing it right. It will hurt because a part of yourself will be continually dying in order to give life to your spouse, to keep the marriage alive and thriving.”

Towers continuously challenges the status quo, or so-called conventional wisdom, including the two most common views of divorce, “either as two impetuous adolescents in adult bodies who argued too much and made the best choice to move on, or as two unfortunate souls who simply ‘fell out of love.’” Instead, she believes there is a third, more accurate view for the prevalence of divorce and its negative impact on culture, particularly our children: spousal abandonment.

Bride and Groom

She describes the cycle: “A couple is married with children. One spouse is frequently…from a home where one parent abandoned the other. Their level of conflict is within the range of normal. There are no red flags that the marriage is floundering until around the time when an adulterous relationship begins, and at some point is revealed.”  She goes on to point out that the family of the offending spouse then encourages—tacitly if not explicitly—to abandon the marriage, thereby perpetuating a cycle of abandonment.

Cohabitation before marriage? Towers tells Lopez that it makes the eventual nuptials more unstable, “…cohabitation before marriage is associated with higher divorce rates, a greater proneness to infidelity…Cohabitation is the common thread of instability that runs through each of the alternatives to a lifelong, monogamous married life.”

Pornography and same-sex marriage are also covered in K-Lo’s eye-opening interview with the developmental psychologist, who unequivocally states that the former has no redeeming value to a marriage, “The verdict is [in] on pornography: Nothing good can come of it. Its sole effect is to destroy happiness and love.”

And on same-sex marriage, Towers is equally clear, “This debate isn’t about whether gay people deserve to be married. It’s about what marriage is. As Ryan Anderson says, one can’t really be in favor of a ‘square circle.’”  But she explains the need to speak the truth in love to those with same-sex attractions saying, “…We love you as daughters and sons of God; that we respect your right to be treated with dignity and respect. But in the recent words of Washington, D.C.’s Cardinal Wuerl, marriage is a ‘human community that predates government. Its meaning is something to be recognized and protected, not reconstructed.’”

You can read the whole interview here.

NOM's John Eastman Debates Marriage on PBS News Hour

States have been feeling the ripple effects over these past few months following the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling. NOM Chairman John Eastman was featured on PBS News Hour today to talk about how the DOMA decision is affecting state laws, particularly those states that already have marriage protection amendments in their constitutions.

Debating Marriage: What's a "Hater" To Do?

In the Public Discourse today, Narrator Principal Brian Brown writes on the need for marriage advocates to discuss marriage in a way that appeals not only to reason, but also to emotion, intuition, and imagination.

Brown outlines Nathan Hitchen's document You’ve Been Framed: A New Primer for the Marriage Debate to suggests several methods of unifying marriage advocates "so that we can pursue a future in which we are no longer viewed as haters and bad guys."

Hitchen argues that to change aspirations, marriage advocates must understand five basic things:

  • Emotion, which interacts with reason in people’s moral imaginations;
  • Narratives, which shape people’s biases about pretty much everything;
  • Stories, which make things relatable and personal in a way no courtroom argument does;
  • Metaphors, which allow the mind to easily process and retain complex ideas; and
  • Memes, which are easily replicable ideas that stick in people’s minds and slowly change perceptions.

Debating MarriageChanging aspirational narratives is also partly done through metaphors. Research has consistently shown that audiences are more likely to remember and comprehend complex arguments through images. Marriage advocates, Hitchen suggests, should communicate truths about marriage and the common good through metaphors such as “marriage is our country’s social infrastructure.” Marriage isn’t just a religious institution or a majority-rules game for the same reason highways and harbors aren’t—men and women are the harbors from which children set sail (which is partly why some people in France and Britain who want homosexuals to be happy don’t favor gay marriage).

And finally, narratives are changed through memes. Hitchen says marriage advocates should compress their arguments into easily replicable ideas that can stick in people’s minds and slowly challenge prevailing assumptions. “Marriage equality” is the meme that is currently dominating the debate. Even disagreeing with it implicitly accepts its premise.

To beat such a “sticky” meme, marriage advocates would have to popularize a stickier meme (preferably stealing back a term the other side likes to use). For example, the meme “true marriage is more diverse” appeals to the distinct, complementary differences between mothering and fathering (instead of the “mono-gendered” structure of two men or two women). Or the meme “changing marriage creates inequality” could be attached to stories of the unequal emotional experiences of children raised in single-sex environments. For memes to work, they have to be on the leading edge of every pro-marriage argument, all the time. -Public Discourse

Why Is It So Difficult to Discuss Marriage?

As a forward to the 2006 book "The Meaning of Marriage", prominent ethicist Jean Bethke Elshtain, who passed away earlier this week, wrote this insightful piece on the marriage debate.

The Public Discourse:

One reason, of course, is that we all have a stake in the debate and its outcome. No one is left untouched by marriage, including those who never marry, because marriage is such a pervasive institution in our society. One recent estimate indicates that 88 percent of women and 82 percent of men will marry at some point.

Don't TalkGiven the importance of marriage as an institution for individuals and for society, the thoughtful citizen has every reason to expect, and even demand, a deep and thoughtful debate as the precondition for any change in how we understand marriage and encourage it to take shape. One need only reflect on previous alterations in the regulation of marriage in order to understand that changes in marriage law have consequences that intellectuals, politicians, and citizens alike should think through thoroughly before endorsing.

When one looks back on the debates that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s over changing the divorce laws of this country—leading to the wide-scale institutionalization of no-fault divorce—there was much debate about the rights of women stuck in unhappy marriages. There were few serious discussions about what effects no-fault divorce would have on the institution of marriage; how social perception of marriage as a normative institution would subsequently change; how its purpose in society might be altered; what historical and philosophical roots anchored the movement; what effect widespread no-fault divorce might have on how we raise children and prepare them to become responsible citizens. Certainly people did not consider the negative impact no-fault divorce would have on women themselves!

But we have now learned that divorce is strongly associated with the immiseration of women: studies indicate, for example, that between one-fifth and one-third of women fall into poverty in the wake of a divorce. At the time, there were a few who argued that no-fault divorce would have significant social repercussions, but the ensuing highly-charged debate, again narrowly cast in terms of individual rights, muted their voices. Any opposition was construed as anti-feminist, despite the fact that many of the concerns expressed were precisely about the well-being of women who faced divorce.

...Responsible social scientists and political theorists always caution that major social change—and same-sex marriage involves something more basic than no-fault divorce—always trails negative unintended consequences in its wake. It follows that this recognition, for which there is a mountain of compelling evidence, should caution us to move with great care if we aim to alter the fundamental human institution that has always been the groundwork of social life.

Millennials Will Save Marriage

Here's a fantastic piece from Chris Marlink over at Marriage Generation. Millennials, he argues, the same generation poised to throw it all away, will ultimately be the ones to redeem and restore marriage:

FriendsMillennials, those approximately 18 to about 31, are the generation most supportive of redefining marriage. They’re increasingly likely to delay or forgo marriage altogether (just 26% of adults aged 20 to 29 were married in 2008, compared to nearly 70% in 1960), and they’re the most convinced that marriage is becoming obsolete.

But here’s my counterintuitive thesis: Millennials, that same generation poised to throw it all away, will save marriage. They’ll do it the way sailors have made progress in strong headwinds for thousands of years. They’ll tack.

...using the word “marriage” to solemnize same-sex relationships wouldn’t be a redefinition so much as a natural conclusion. In the public mind, marriage has already been redefined—that is, separated from its true and full meaning. Consider this paragraph from Molly Ball at the Atlantic, writing on the fallout of the Prop 8 electoral victory:

In survey after survey, researchers would ask people what marriage meant to them -- not gay marriage, but the concept of marriage itself. And the answers were always the same: Marriage meant love and commitment. Even people who'd been divorced three times would say the same thing. Then the researchers would ask, "Why do you think gay people want to get married?" and the answers would change: They want rights and benefits. They're trying to make a political point. They don't understand what marriage is really about. Most commonly, respondents said they simply didn't know. [emphasis mine]

Millennials who hold orthodox convictions on marriage are not in a race to stop marriage from being redefined. Supposing most Americans understand marriage as “love and commitment,” then let us acknowledge that this exclusively personal understanding of marriage, sundered from any of the societal implications of the union, already represents a redefinition. Same-sex “marriage” is a near unassailable eventuality if marriage means solely “love and commitment.” Our task then, is not to stop a redefinition of marriage: it is to correct a redefinition. It is to redeem and restore marriage in the hearts and minds of our neighbors. If we do that, the law will follow.

The truth about marriage can't be changed, and the millennial generation will be the ones to recognize that truth! Finish reading Chris Marlink's article here and let us know your thoughts below.

Schubert: There is No Such Thing as “Gender Identity”

"One of the biggest problems I have with the movement to redefine marriage is the series of falsehoods we’re required to accept that fly in the face of the established natural order. Consider the contention that men and women are identical – not just equal but actually the same. If this is accepted as true, then having a gender basis for marriage no longer makes sense. But it’s not true; a man is not a woman, and a woman is not a man." — Frank Schubert

A must-read from our National Political Director Frank Schubert on RedState today:

GenderYou might look at my Caucasian features and wonder why I am claiming to be an African American.  I may not be a natural descendent of African American lineage, but I feel black and have thus decided to identify as African American. Since I identify as African American, I am African American, and you must accept me as such. Because I claim my identity as an African American, I demand that the law recognize me as such and afford me all the rights and obligations of that ethnicity.

You may think that my decision to claim an African American identity is ridiculous. You would be right. Ethnicity is determined by ancestry and genetic lineage, not by someone’s identified perceptions and “feelings.” But it’s no more ridiculous than the latest craze from the left concerning something they call “gender identity.”

Under this theory, a person’s “gender identity” can be different than his or her gender at birth and identity can change depending on the circumstances.  A child could identify as a boy at home, the gender he was born with, and a girl at school. It may be, the argument goes, that he’s not comfortable enough at home with his identity as a girl, but is comfortable enough at school to identify as a girl. So society must treat him as a girl at school even if he’s a boy at home.

Read and share Frank's full article here.