Legalizing gay marriage wouldn’t affect traditional marriage

There are no good arguments for denying homosexuals the right to a civil (non-religious) marriage. But of all the arguments that opponents make, perhaps the most ridiculous is this: If gays are allowed to marry, heterosexual marriage will be weakened.

How, exactly, does that work?

Despite the utter illogic of the argument, a nationally-known, so-called expert on marriage — David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values — testified in California’s Supreme Court yesterday in a case challenging a law that prohibits same-sex marriage.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in California rolled out their star witness Tuesday, an author and advocate who predicted that allowing gays and lesbians to wed would discourage heterosexual marriage and might lead to legalized polygamy.

Extending marital rights to couples who cannot conceive children would change marriage from “a child-based public institution to an adult-centered private institution” and “weaken the role of marriage generally in society,” David Blankenhorn testified at a trial in San Francisco federal court on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Blankenhorn, the trial’s last scheduled witness, said he believes “leading scholars” share his view that same-sex marriage would weaken heterosexuals’ respect for the institution and accelerate a half-century-old trend of increased cohabitation and rising divorce rates.

But under cross-examination by a lawyer for two same-sex couples, Blankenhorn was unable to cite any supporting statements or evidence for that conclusion from the scholars he relied on for his testimony, though he said he was sure some of them would agree with him.

Though I’m divorced, I’m a fan of the institution of marriage because of the benefits it delivers to those in good ones, including better health and financial security. However, I know perfectly well why marriage has been under pressure in the Western world for decades — reasons that have nothing to do with gay and lesbian couples.

For most of human history, marriage has been an institution that resolves economic problems and property rights — conferring economic benefits to a wife and property heirs to the husband. (And please don’t tell me that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If the Bible story is literally true, who did Cain marry?) As any student of ancient history — or the Old Testament — knows perfectly well, the traditional marriage didn’t involve one woman. It involved as many as the man could afford to take care of.

Down through the ages, marriage has evolved as society has evolved. In the Western world, where women can control their reproduction and work at jobs that give them financial security, it has evolved into an institution that couples rely on for mutual support and fulfillment. That’s a high bar, which helps explain why roughly half of marriages end in divorce.

That will not change when gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. They should have that right under the law. No church that opposes gay marriage would be forced to perform one, but churches that do perform gay marriages, like mine, should do so and have them recognized. (Marriage is a civil rite as well as a religious one. Couples get married everyday at courthouses and city halls around the country.)

768 comments Add your comment

Joe

June 18th, 2010
12:47 pm

I like the way Tucker puts this garbage out there and just sits back and watches as the spineless crustaceans of the far left smears everyone who disagrees with them… If they only knew how idiotic they sound…

Lil' Barry Bailout

June 18th, 2010
12:48 pm

Calling it marriage doesn’t make it so. Americans know what marriage is, and it ain’t that.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
12:48 pm

Maybe this has turned into an issue or morality or religious beliefs because there is no legal foothold to defend the discrimination of a entire group of people.

Mrs. W.

June 18th, 2010
12:49 pm

Winkie @ 10:08. I am actually more of a Republican than a liberal Democrat and almost never agree with CT on any subject. Laws have been changing for 200 years +. I think they are called constitutional amendments.

I am not afraid that allowing civil unions for same sex couples will trash my marriage of 26 years.

My niece is not a pervert or an abberation – she is simply a lesbian. One in a committed and loving relationship. She is not ugly or “butch” looking. She is smart and funny and she just happens to love another woman. I think we have much larger issues to deal with as a country. Issues that really do affect ALL of us. This is not one of them.

uga_b

June 18th, 2010
12:49 pm

Scout, from a logical standpoint you are presupposing your God’s existence as fact and using that premise to base your arguments. If someone does not accept your premise that YOUR God exists, the one that hates Egyptians and Gays, they won’t find anything you say all that relevant. I think if I had a God, he would hate circular logic and those shirts that girls wear that make them all look pregnant. You know the ones.

Swede Atlanta

June 18th, 2010
12:50 pm

A Conservative………..

First of all the Bible doesn’t make one mention of homosexuality. It talks about man to man (interesting I guess Lesbians get a pass) sex. The concept of homosexuality wasn’t recognized at the time the Biblical oral tradition was memorialized in writing nor until the late 19th century.

Secondly, sin is a religious term. You can believe anything you like in your church, synagogue or mosque but it has no place in secular society.

I personally believe that ignorance such as that you are displaying is sinful according to my personal religious beliefs. I believe God gave us a brain for a reason and wants us to learn and expand our understanding of our world.

The fact that ignorance isn’t written in the Bible means nothing. The Old Testament is simply a record (heavily edited to meet man’s own objectives) of the people of Israel. The New Testament is a record (heavily edited to meet man’s own objectives) of believers in Christ as a Savior.

I can say anything is a sin. It doesn’t mean my religious belief has any place in the public realm.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:51 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

The point is ………… it doesn’t matter whether its genetic or learned. The ACT is wrong and perverse.

Guess what? I was born with a genetic heterosexual problem ………. it’s called (at least in my younger years) to have at least a little desire to have sex with beautiful women other than my wife.
To ACT OUT on that is immoral and wrong (and the thought as well – that’s why we are All sinners).

Based on your age, you may or may not remember a guy named Richard Speck. He murdered 8 nurses in Chicago years ago. At one time (and then they thought better of it) his attorneys were going to use his XYY (double male) chromosone makeup as a defense. There was evidence that the double male XYY defect (instead of just XY) made men more prone to violence, acne, etc.

Even if that were true …………. a genetic problem NEVER excuses the act.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
12:52 pm

Swede Atlanta :

You have obviously never read Romans chapter one. May I recommend it to you.

Americans

June 18th, 2010
12:54 pm

“Americans know what marriage is, and it ain’t that.”

I am quite capable of my own deciding what it is that I “know” without any help from you.

Union

June 18th, 2010
12:55 pm

first.. i dont think the “christian” religion should have a voice.. of all the religions… it is the youngest.. second.. gay marriage should be allowed and no one should be able to say anything about it.. third.. a honeymoon in the middle east should be mandatory..

PearlJam

June 18th, 2010
12:56 pm

Joe Mustich

Your a gay rights activist – how about showing some respect fo those that don’t agree with you.

Stop throwing that title “Justice of the Peace” around like it matters, you just spaming for money.

Lil' Barry Bailout

June 18th, 2010
12:58 pm

Americans: I am quite capable of my own deciding
———

You’re in denial. You probably think that if you call a dog’s tail a leg, it has five legs.

Michael K.

June 18th, 2010
12:58 pm

I don’t really come down hard-and-fast on one side or the other. On the one hand, I believe that consenting adults should be allowed to form any contract they want. Looking at the issue that way, I suppose I support the legalization of gay marriage – or perhaps the end of the legal recognition of marriage to be replaced with contractually recognized civil unions (it’s sort of all the same).

Then, on the other hand, I do recognize that marriage and sex are inherently social practices. I’m not always certain that my libertarian philosophy is so great at dealing with these types of issues. Cynthia presents a sort of teleological view of the evolution of marriage (I realize teleological evolution is an oxymoron, but I don’t think Cynthia does), that isn’t really correct. Marriage didn’t evolve into monogamy – outside the West, I don’t think any major civilization forbade powerful men from taking multiple wives. Monogamy is an idiosyncratic feature of European culture, that many (though not all) other cultures have subsequently adopted.

Gay marriage, too, is an idiosyncratic Western phenomenon – though it’s a modern one. Lots of cultures have taken a permissive attitude towards homosexuality, but ours is the first to create the idea of “gay marriage”. It seems highly likely to me that if the US legalizes gay marriage, that we will end up legalizing polygamy as well – especially if it’s done by courts on the basis of marriage being a fundamental right. Muslims and other polygamous groups will argue that polygamy has been a part of their religions/cultures for millennia and that it’s discriminatory to define marriage according in the traditional Western manner.

I oppose polygamy on the grounds that, in the real world, it leads to repression of women and, I believe, undermines the fundamental notion of individual equality that underpins American (and, to a lesser extent, European) civilization. Regardless of what Cynthia flippantly says, the legalization of gay marriage increases the probability that polygamy will be legalized as well.

So, I guess I’m mixed up. I’m not really sure there is a right answer to this issue. On the one hand, I’d like for gays to be able to pair up if they like. On the other hand, marriage is a social institution and, in broadening the definition past traditional Western norms, I worry that we open a doorway that will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
12:59 pm

Cynthia,

You need to study the scripture of Jude. You know, that one in the New Testament of the Bible? (that’s the book they use at Church, or are supposed to) You and your liberal cronies are the “dreamers” spoken and warned about in that book.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

To Scout: Can you accept the fact the people just don’t believe what you believe? I’m glad there are laws in America to prevent others from forcing their beliefs on us. Wasn’t that the whole reason those guys fled England and established America in the first place? Wasnt’ that the whole reason for all the wars in the 1700 and 1800’s? It’s sad to think that after 200+ years, there are still people who want to dictate to others what to believe and what to think – even the Communists didn’t last that idea.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

I can think of 425 (this blog) reasons to support my belief there is no god. And, for all you Muslims, I can think of 73 reasons there is no allah (the virgins promised martyrs). I live “in town” and I am not aware of any gays in hiding. Nope, I think the Vatican of all places is where you’ll find most of the hidden gays (especially the child molester variety). There is nothing special about being heterosexual, and there is nothing special about being gay.

Lil' Barry Bailout

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

I guess it’s also possible that you’re not a real American.

blutto

June 18th, 2010
1:00 pm

Swede Atlanta: “DOMA does NOT ban gay marriage. DOMA simply says that if state A legalizes gay marriage, state B does not need to recognize it.”

You left out something that while it does not specifically ban gay marriage, makes the term meaningless–sort of like saying, “dry water.” Water isn’t dry and no attempt at redefining it will make it so. From DOMA:

“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:01 pm

Union :

1) Your first premise is wrong …….. it’s the oldest. “In the beginning the Word (Jesus) …….. was God.”

2) Disagree.

3) Agree !!

A CONSERVATIVE

June 18th, 2010
1:01 pm

GENESIS 3:—-GOD created marriage to be solely between a man & a women….Social laws are based on the Holy Bible…a book liberals despire for its rules on life.

Michael K.

June 18th, 2010
1:04 pm

A bit off topic, but does anyone else find the existence of homosexuality to be fascinating in and of itself? Since, all things being equal, homosexuals will breed at a lower rate than heterosexuals one would expect that the tendency towards homosexuality would have eventually been “bred out” through the process of evolution. It’s continued existence suggests that it has evolutionary value. That value could either be direct, associated with other traits, or it could even be something that increases the reproductive potential of the group (though not the individual). There are so many possibilities – it’s just really intriguing.

The fact that homosexuality is so much more common among men is also interesting.

Union

June 18th, 2010
1:05 pm

for every bible verse quote.. i can come up with another quote.. written by some “other” person.. that may or may not have had “divine” direction when the pen was moving across the page.. or quill and ink for that matter.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:05 pm

i dissagree with all of you accept for Lesbian At Birth

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:06 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

1) Well, you don’t debate my points very well with a counter argument (i.e., XYY’s) or answer my questions. That tells me something.

2) Never forget that every law ever passed (from murder to how to drill an oil well) is one segment of society’s effort to impose their view of morality (usually by majority but not always) on the other segment. It’s about who has the votes.

That’s why adultery is still “grounds for divorce”. Why is that? Don’t people have the right to have sex with who they want? Who gives a spouse the so called “RIGHT” to sue for divorce on those grounds …………. how horrible and unpatriotic !!!

Hummmmm ……………… ??

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:07 pm

Lesbian At Birth: i hope these people are not getting to you.

Some People are stupid

June 18th, 2010
1:08 pm

I just read GEnesis 3 and see no reference to Marraige being between a man and a woman.

How bout a compromise.

1. The term “marriage” seems to be the issue, so how bout we simply call everything a civil union, a contract that is recognized in every state like other contracts.

2. Uhmm not everyone is Christian, so asserting your Christian beliefs is not really convincing someone who is non-christian of seeing your way.

3.If being homosexual is a choice, then being heterosexual is a choice as well. If something occurs in nature, kinda hard to say it’s unnatural.

4. There is a reason for seperation of church and state, it’s so one religious group does not circumvent the rights of other groups through religion.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:08 pm

to natalie merritt: Thank you!

Americans

June 18th, 2010
1:09 pm

“You’re in denial.”

That seems to be a favorite phrase of yours since you use it with such frequency. Presupposing to speak for Americans shows a sense of insecurity by those uncomfortable with their doubts.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:10 pm

To natalie merrit: They are not getting to me. I am comfortable with who I am and who I chose to love. I think that “Some People are stupid” just posted a great compromise for everyone – except Scout – :-) ROTFL!

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:11 pm

Some People are stupid :

Is pedophilia, necrophlia and bestiality (to name only a few perversion out there) an unnatural choice ?

It all occurrs in human “nature”. Just asking.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:12 pm

Homosexuals are genetically defective.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:13 pm

natalie merrit & Lesbian at Birth:

Hard to debate isn’t it ladies? Just much easier to say “but that’s not what I believe”.

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:13 pm

Oxymoron:

We all are. That’s the point.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:13 pm

Lesbian At Birth: i agree! :)

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:16 pm

to Scout: It’s not hard to debate at all. I’m just not trying to convince you to see things my way – as your are trying to convince us all of your beliefs. I do believe the conversation started with how will legalizing gay married affect the “traditional” marriage. Since you don’t have any arguments to support the actual subject matter, your only argument has been YOUR religious beliefs. I’m not trying to argue anyone’s religious beliefs. I don’t believe my marrying my partner will affect YOUR marriage. Once you come up with an argument for that – the subject matter – we can communicate on a more intellectual level.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:17 pm

scout: you can belive what you believe. and we can believe what we believe. stop preching to us cause your just wasting you time. and just because you believe something doesnt mean that what everyone else believes is false. they just have differant opinions then you do. you are narrow minded,

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:18 pm

Lesbian at Birth:

If you weren’t trying to convince people to see things your way, you wouldn’t still be arguing with Scout.

songbird

June 18th, 2010
1:18 pm

Johnson – mankind refers to all human kind, not just men. You truly are an ignorant person.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:18 pm

To natalie merrit: It would really be nice if we could communicate offline! I love your thinking!!!!!! And support! I also appreciate all those who chose NOT to enforce their beliefs on my lifestyle – whether they agree or disagree.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:19 pm

Natalie Merritt:

Stop preaching ~ you’re wasting our time.

Woody Mellor

June 18th, 2010
1:19 pm

Michael K., is you really want to go off on a tangent, read my earlier post about unisex Americans (born with both sex organs). and, as I suggest, take of your shirt and explain why YOU have nipples? (assuming you are male – Michael is also a woman’s name). Some people follow their own insticts/heart and others look to god or science books to define words like “sexuality” or “love”, or “marriage”, etc. There is a biological definition (as determined by X and Y chromosomes), but as I noted, sometimes the genetic definition does not match the physiological definition. AND FINALLY, for all those Bible-quoting parrots who make it clear that the good book holds the answer, let me lay a little Tim Tebow John 15:13, “…no greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his friends…” Do you mean dying for one’s friends is more “loving” than matrimony? And is God telling us that “love” trancends gender? When a soldier throws himself on a hand grenade to save his “friends” is this an act of “love” EWWWW – I thought we don’t want gays in the military. OR, maybe they’re not his friends, in which case, he has committed a sin in suicide. Hmmmph? (rubbing chin with hand). And really, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter because the government doesn’t view Americans as gay or straight or male or female. It views us a worker bees who exist to sustain the hive. Speaking of which, I must go back to work.

George Foreman 3:16

June 18th, 2010
1:20 pm

“If a man layeth head to toe with another man in a sleeping bag, reach arounds are permitted, so sayeth the Lord”

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:20 pm

Oxymoron : how is she trying to convince people? she is mereing standing up for herself and her beliefs just as you would if someone was doing this to you.

Lesbian At Birth

June 18th, 2010
1:21 pm

To Oxymoron: I’m still on here because I have not yet heard one legal defense of how my marriage to my partner would affect the marriage of any heterosexual couple. Also, I’m not arguing with anyone on the matter but rather decided to participate in the hope of providing some insight of the subject matter from the gay perspective.

natalie merritt

June 18th, 2010
1:22 pm

Oxymoron : im preaching? hmm well if i am .. leave :)
have a great day!

Scout

June 18th, 2010
1:22 pm

Oxymoron:

Thank you.

Enjoyed the exhanges ……….. wish some of you could have been more honest in your responses to my points/questions on genetics vs. learned behavior, etc. And of course you continue to disregard the fact that every law is a “moral” decision by someone. Even athiests make “moral” decisions ………….. or “nothing” is wrong – even murder.

Got to run ……….. back later.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:22 pm

Natalie:

By continuing to argue, my dear. Get on with life. She’s doing the same thing that she’s slamming Scout for doing by incessantly posting and posting and bitching and bitching.

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:23 pm

Lesbian:

“Providing insight” is trying to make people see things your way.

I'm here from the government and I'm here to help

June 18th, 2010
1:25 pm

This is such a BS issue I will only make one post. Hurray! I know!

Gay marriage fits right into where this country is heading. Down the drain! If we all were gay where in the hell does the next and future generations come from? Artificial insemination? Right! This guy ask this women to carry his baby or this girl asked this guy for his semen?

We were created as a man and women for a reason. Those that were created differently, I’m real sorry, LIFE IS NOT FAIR.

GET OVER YOURSELVES!

Oxymoron

June 18th, 2010
1:25 pm

Lesbian & Natalie:

If you weren’t trying to preach/ change people’s minds, you’d say your piece and be done.