The question often asked after I post something about the benefits of marriage is, ‘if it’s so good, wouldn’t it be good for same-sex couples and the children they are raising?”.
The question assumes that men and women are interchangeable and contribute nothing unique to a marriage and to their children, and/or that marriage is nothing more than the sum of legal benefits conferred by the government.
If you believe either of these, then you probably have no problem with redefining marriage. But the benefits of marriage measured in social science depend on the male-female bond and commitment to the spouse and children.
Over at the Corner Maggie Gallagher responded to a similar criticism and relates this from her experience,
Back in the 1990s, when I went into the public square and said, “Marriage really matters because children need a mom and a dad,” I wasn’t permitted to rest my case on vague generalities — I was required to produce data. Mounds of data, in fact. We have no scientific evidence at all, that I know of, that children raised by same-sex couples benefit if their unions are legally considered marriages.
She briefly addresses the Biblarz and Stacey’s recent study claiming that parents’ gender doesn’t matter for children.
Stacey and Biblarz have published a new study (I have only scanned it), but one big fact leaps out: They concede, as the Prop 8 expert witness conceded, we have no scientific information at all on how children fare in motherless families.
The “rights” language used by those who want to redefine marriage isn’t convincing when we can see the need a child has for a mother and father, and believe that the child has a right to know them.
…except for closing arguments (to be set after Judge Walker has finished digesting the evidence), a decision (probably in a few months), an appeal to the 9th Circuit (a decision in a couple years), and a probable trip to the Supreme Court. It could take several years to complete the process. It behooves both sides in this clash of values over marriage neither to take too much solace from a win in the lower courts, nor despair over a defeat. The issues are destined for the Supreme Court, and no one can confidently predict what the final outcome will be, because the outcome there may depend largely what the makeup of the Supreme Court is by the time the case gets there. I personally am convinced that the constitutional case for traditional marriage is rock-solid, but I’m realistic enough to understand that Justice Ginsburg (and her three liberal friends on the Court) and I agree eye to eye on almost no social issues. As usual, Justice Kennedy is the expected wild card.
Prof. Dale Carpenter, a law professor and pundit who favors legalized same-sex marriage, expresses doubts over same-sex marriage’s chances given the current makeup of the Supreme Court even among its liberal members:
“Like many others, I was dubious from the beginning about this bet. I don’t see how you get to a 5-4 majority on the current Court to strike down Prop 8. The hope has been that Justice Kennedy would join the Court’s liberal wing in such a decision. I’m not completely convinced that even this liberal wing — Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor — will take on the marriage laws of 45 states. Whatever else one thinks of their constitutional philosophies, the Court’s liberals are not nearly as adventurous or as aggressive as their liberal forebears.”
Maggie Gallagher over at The Corner thinks Olson and Boies chose the wrong strategy to win Kennedy’s vote..
How “inevitable” is the redefinition of marriage? Read a couple of expert opinions:
Ben Smith says “yes—gay marriage is inevitable” over at Politico.
Maggie Gallagher posted her “Top Eight Reasons Why Gay Marriage Is Not Inevitable” at The Corner on National Review.
The results of Maine’s Question 1 are debated by Maggie Gallagher (National Organization for Marriage) and Evan Wolfson (Freedom to Marry) on ABC’s Twittercast.
The segments are 4-6 minutes in length and are separated by 30 second commercials. Watch it here.
Maggie makes a great point toward the end that Evan has difficulty defending—that Americans are tired of being called “haters” and bigots simply because they disagree with same-sex marriage.
Evan describes people who support one-man, one-woman marriage in the interview as, “cruel” and “… attacking gay families,” and, “The groups that are funding anti-gay attacks in states like Maine…”
He seems to back off of that language, or attempts to confine it to organizations, but Maggie addresses it this way:
“…I think that that’s why the gay marriage movement is losing right now, because they don’t respect Americans who disagree with them on the marriage question.”
Maggie Gallagher makes six predictions about the short term effects of redefining marriage. Read her first post and her second over at The Corner.
Like Carrie Prejean, everyone who believes in marriage has a role to play in defending it.
Maggie Gallagher’s “The Carrie Effect: Notes from the Frontlines of the Marriage War” in National Review (subscription required) makes a case for Miss Prejean’s effect on our country’s rather heated discussion about marriage.
Gallagher includes back story in the states where marriage was redefined recently, and outlines the Redefiner Playbook–the shortlist of strategies spun with pocketsful of gay anti-marriage money.
The list includes applying racist motives to one-man, one-woman supporters, intimidation tactics, and donating to state politicians to convince them that there will be no repercussion in the ballot box if they vote to redefine marriage.
Beyond these tactics, Gallagher describes the Redefiners as The Borg–”painting truths in broad strokes, hoping to make reality conform to their pictures.” This is most evident with the repetition from the propaganda to-do list:
1) Tell Americans that gay marriage is inevitable.
2) Repeat #1.
Prejean disrupted the propaganda plan with a courageous statement in support of one-man, one-woman marriage, and that’s the playbook we need to follow. Marriage supporters should continue to disrupt the broken record. The redefinition of marriage is NOT inevitable.
According to Gallagher, the pressure is intense at the top. Even prestigious law firms are being intimidated by the big gay money and cultural elites repeating the mantra of inevitability. So, it’s up to you and me–Joe and Jeanette Q. Public–to take a cue from Carrie, and speak the truth with courage. Every person has a part to play.
