A Quick Corrective about “Traditional Marriage”

“Traditional marriage” was a property rights agreement. And God liked it that way. According to the Torah/Bible.

Biblical marriage was polygamy. And God liked it that way. According to the Torah/Bible.

Romantic marriage, as we know it now, is relatively modern in human history. Younger than a couple hundred years.

Straight marriage has about a 50% failure rate. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY PEOPLE. Except when sometimes closeted people divorce so that they can pursue same-sex relationships and their spouses can finally have a real romantic partnership.

Children have one parent, four parents, three parents (or no parents) all the time, EVEN WHEN ALL THE PARENTS ARE STRAIGHT.

Same-sex couples have been raising children for decades. Studies about their well-being exist*. THESE CHILDREN ARE FINE.

Except that, under federal law, their families are illegitimate. Second class. Subject to additional financial, legal, and health threats because of this second-class status.

So until their families are recognized by law as no threat at all to our world order, they will not be all the way fine.

*PS I’d add to Marcotte’s rundown of the “concern trolling” the arguments I heard yesterday on NPR about how gay marriage is a “young institution” and it’s “too soon” to know what “effects” it may have on society. This enrages me so much I’m barely articulate.

All I can say is: if my best friends’ kids, with two moms, will trigger the apocalypse, this f-in society may deserve it.

 

UPDATE: “Journalistic objectivity” demands that when a source on NPR claims that “we know nothing” about the “broad social effects” of this “new institution” of gay marriage, a freakin journalist points out, after the interview, on the air, that in fact WE DO KNOW THE EFFECTS. And those effects are virtually nil. There are STUDIES. Already. BAH.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 thoughts on “A Quick Corrective about “Traditional Marriage”

  1. A.M.B. says:

    Justice Alito’s comments yesterday about gay marriage being “too new” and needing more data outrage me, too. It’s not an empirical question. It’s a constitutional question about a fundamental right.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Hah! I just wrote an additional sputtering update about that. This so-called “caution” is just another mask for the same old homophobia.

      And in fact, every year, greater and greater majorities of US citizens answer in polls that they support gay marriage. I’m not sure where this desire for “caution” against “sweeping social change” can come from, if not fear of the gayz.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Unfortunately, people who think that same-sex love is wrong, creepy, and gross may not agree with you that people have a constitutional, fundamental right to practice it. Some of those people may be on the Supreme Court. You’re an actual attorney, (while I just play one on TV,) and you know more about it than I do.

  2. A.M.B. says:

    Thankfully, the people who don’t see it as a fundamental right are disappearing. My children will grow up to think this is a non-issue, and the question is what side of history the Supreme Court wants to be on (I wrote about this in my post this week). There were people who didn’t think interracial marriage was a fundamental right either, and this is no different.

I'd love to hear what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: