Mandatory Marriage for Straights Who Procreate!

I have had enough!

Until the mindless pro-FMA conservatives demand federal legislation that requires mandatory marriage for all straight Americans who procreate---no divorce, no birth out of wedlock, mandatory immediate remarrying if one parent dies, no gray areas at all---this kind of bullshit needs to stop:

It's an ad for publications in Ohio and text reads:

Why Don't [Ohio] Senators DeWine and Voinovich Believe Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father?

Unless the Senate passes the Federal Marriage Amendment, homosexual marriage could be coming to Ohio-and sooner than you think. Here's the bottom line: homosexual marriage intentionally creates fatherless families or motherless families. Think about it.

Ohio's senators have said nice things about marriage. But so far they won't take the one step that will save it. They won't support the Federal Marriage Amendment. We thought you would like to know.

Every child understands how important a mom and a dad are. Help make your senators as smart as a kid. Pick up the phone and tell their staffs you support the Federal Marriage Amendment, and they should too.

This infuriates me because my sister who is a lesbian has a daughter. She has raised that daughter to be one of the finest young women I have ever met in my life and done so while maintaining a gay relationship. If not being raised by a mother-father team impacted her in anyway at all, you can't tell. She's far more decent a human being than the filth that would suggest she's somehow less than she could/should be because of her mother's sexual orientation.

If being raised by both a male and female parent is important enough to legislate against gay marriages, it must be important enough to legislate mandatory straight marriages.

Comments

[Jon Henke]

Damned well put, Edward.

[Jesurgislac]

What a repellant ad.

Being a good parent is hard enough that it's disagraceful that anyone would denigrate good parents and good parenting with the implication that all you need is a heterosexual marriage.

It's another lying piece of bigotry.

[Iron Lungfish]

And why's divorce still legal, incidentally? Banning divorve would not only do more to "protect marriages," it would be in keeping with a strictly literalist interpretation of the words of Jesus - "What God has joined let no man put asunder."

So come on, Congressmen. I want to see Newt and Rush and Joe Lieberman and every other divorced or multi-divorced blowhard who spouts off about preserving marriage by barring it to a tenth of the population get up and put their money where their mouths are.

[wilfred]

Damn. I hoped the caption on the ad was going to say "Congress, if you don't support this amendment we're going to shoot little Kenny".

[sidereal]

Gay people make little Joey cry.

What a crock. That the underlying principle (gay marriage makes us uncomfortable) must be shrouded in other principles (single-gender parenthood is bad. please don't pay any attention to our numerous divorces and infidelities) is at least a sign that the underlying principle doesn't sell. Take it as good news. These people are reduced to pure crockery because most people don't like their real message.

[Norbizness]

"They won't take the one step that will save it"

This is obviously a trick. If anyone responds favorably to this ad, they are stripped of their right to vote, right? RIGHT?

[Moe Lane]

And this is where the thread begins to go bad.

[Nathan S.]

Shouldn't you folks be heartened? If this is as good as your opponents can come up with, that is.

Also, the title to this post is actually kind of funny. 40 or 50 years ago there was, basically, mandatory marriage for people who procreate. It just wasn't the government imposing the rules.

[Norbizness]

Sorry, Moe, just kind of comparing this ridiculous ad to an "outstanding traffic warrants" sting that promises the recipient a shot at a speedboat.

[Edward]

Shouldn't you folks be heartened? If this is as good as your opponents can come up with, that is.

It's still highly offensive, Nathan.

As to the social pressure 40 or 50 years ago to get married, that still didn't prevent divorce or widowhood or other situations where a single parent could raise children without folks thinking the state had to step in to prevent such a set up.

[fdl]

Moe: it's ads like this that make it impossible for social libs/fiscal moderates like myself ever to join the R. party. While both parties have their extremists, both in office and out, it is my personal belief that the R. extremists have waaaay too much power and influence. (see, e.g., G. Norquist.) ads like this support my preconception.

cheers

Francis

[Moe Lane]

"Sorry, Moe, just kind of comparing this ridiculous ad to an "outstanding traffic warrants" sting that promises the recipient a shot at a speedboat."

Actually, it came more across as switching the focus of the thread from criticising the group who produced the article (which I'm fine with; in my experience they deserve it) to calling for the disenfranchisement of the people who might be swayed by said article (which I don't find particularly funny). I know that you almost certainly didn't mean it that way, but if I can stick a wedge under a rock before it starts an avalanche, I will. :)

Moe

PS: And we'll skip over lightly the traditional Who Embraces Their Extremists More Debate: nobody ever changes anybody else's mind on that one.

[Nathan S.]

Edward,

Well, I think that you can agree that the prevalence of single parenthood then was a bare fraction of what it is today. Divorce was quite rare, and widows/widowers were usually expected to remarry fairly quickly.

Single parenthood is not something to be ignored or embraced, as some misguided people do. It has demonstrably negative effects on large numbers of children, and should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary.

It is precisely the decline of social stigma and respect for tradition that has got us into this situation. If you need to pound in a nail, you do not reach for a sledgehammer. Unless, of course, it is the only tool you have. Sad situation, really.

[Edward]

It has demonstrably negative effects on large numbers of children, and should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary.

Cite? A comparison/contrast with children who grew up with parents in a loveless, or even abusive, marriage would be good.

It is precisely the decline of social stigma and respect for tradition that has got us into this situation.

I can't advocate stigma over common sense as a social tool, I'm afraid. People should consider long and hard whether they're ready to have children, and part of that is how committed they are to the household they intend to raise them in. Public education should include dicussion about how difficult single parenthood is, as well. But stigma is oppressive and unenlightened, generally speaking. Sorry, but IMO we're better off waiting until the alternatives speak for themselves and people choose to have children when they're more sure they'll be able to provide a good home for them. I'm quite sure you and I would disagree on what constitutes a good home, but that's another debate:

By the way, you're not willing to legislate to correct "this sistuation" are you?

[Nathan S.]

Edward,

A couple of cites, just off of Google. I tried to avoid the ones that seemed less neutral.

www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040619-104226-7324r.htm

(Forgive the cutting and pasting.)

The whole point of social stigma and respect for tradition is that it is common sense. The stigma and the traditions developed because they were self-reinforcing.

This is, basically, conservatism. Tradition is the accumulated wisdom of dead folks, human nature is constant, and so forth. Stigma reinforces tradition without the need for the state.

This is why we do not like people mucking about and changing things just because it seems logical at present.

As to whether I would be willing to legislate such things, well... probably. The problem is that laws are not very useful, and can actually be counterproductive, if there is not sufficient consent of the governed. If a large number of people are willing to accept gay marriage and whatnot, as they are in Canada, then no law will be useful.

I will say that I am a conservative, not a libertarian. I do not shriek like a ten-year old girl seeing a spider when someone brings up "legislating morality". Very scary, boys and girls!

[Persimmon]

Ok, I'm disgusted by the ad too. So?

Here's one thing YOU can do:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=112

This link will take you to simple letter-writing form, part of an action campaign - and once you're done with this one, you can look at the other issues they're working on and send letters about the ones you care about, too.

[hilzoy]

Nathan S.: do the effects, good or bad, of single parenthood have anything to do with gay marriage? Surely the whole point is to unite not one but two people of the same sex, who can then raise children or not, as they see fit.

About tradition: I am generally inclined to think twice before tossing traditions out the window, for some of the reasons you mention. But surely there are some traditions that ought to be jettisoned (slavery, for instance.) When I try to figure out how to decide which traditions to retain even if I can't see the point of them and which to discard, two of the considerations that leap to mind are: (1) whether the tradition is unjust, and (2) whether it seems to have worked well for all, or most, of the people affected by it. When a tradition is both unjust and bad for some substantial number of the people affected by it, then it seems to me that it should be discarded.

Moreover, when a tradition has these features, stigmatizing people who reject it seems to me wrong: it just adds pain to injustice. Suppose that we stigmatized slaves who wanted to escape: this would not be a nice non-governmental way of maintaining our traditional way of life, but a way of inflicting further damage on those our way of life has already harmed.

In the case of gay marriage, it seems to me plainly unjust that two people who love one another should be deprived of the various legal protections that come with civil marriage. It would be one thing if we didn't have civil marriage -- if all marriages were religious, and there were some other way in which people who decide to make their lives together could obtain hospital visitation rights, survivorship benefits, and the like. Then I would think: fine, let each denomination or religion decide who it wants to marry. But since we have civil marriage, and we use it to secure for couples a rather large array of legal protections and benefits, it seems to me clearly unjust to deny these to people who want to marry a person of the same gender, just as it would be unjust to deny them to people who want to marry someone of a different race. And if this denial is unjust, then stigmatizing them just compounds it.

About legislating morality: I think that my morality is my business, unless it leads me to harm someone else, in which case the state can stop me. I would therefore be against legislating morality even if I had confidence that the legislators would have the wisdom to get morality right. However, I can't recall being governed by any group of legislators in whom I had any such confidence, and so I don't see any reason to think that what would be legislated would bear any relation to morality other than non-identity. Do you feel more confidence in the wisdom of our elected officials? If not, do you think that the risk of having laws that enforce a false morality on us is acceptable? In either case, why?

[Nathan S.]

hilzoy,

Well, to answer your first question, I would say "not much". I just brought it up because single parenting was being mentioned here.

I think that your second paragraph fits my viewpoint rather well.

Regarding your third paragraph, I will say that stigma itself has no moral weight. It can be used for bad or for good.

Regarding gay marriage, I will say that extending legal protections and such things is perfectly fine, but it is not marriage. I think that this is where people of differing opinions often talk past each other. I do not think that most people who are against expanding the definition of marriage really care about wills and hospital visits.

We are talking about the definition of an institution. We are talking about special recognition of certain relationships (socially monogamous two-person heterosexual ones). I think that what gay couples want is not necessarily legal protections and whatnot, but the same level of official respect and recognition.

I believe that government legislated morality is not nearly as good as morality that we derive from our other institutions, but it is better than nothing at all.

It may sound harsh, but if a government gives support for something (say single motherhood welfare) then it is implying that that thing is morally acceptable. This is legislating morality, even though it may seem to be simple kindness. Actions often have unintended consequences.

And, with that, my "workday" is finished. I will be offline for at least a little while, so have a good one.

[crionna]

Edward, that's unbelievable, but having thought about it, its actually worse than you think (if that's possible). Not only is it a homophobic screed in the guise of child welfare, its sexist as well.

My guess is that the desired response of the target audience to this ad is that this little boy will be made womanly if parented by two men or two women. Your neice's experience would be of no relevance to those who respond the way its creators desire, because she's a girl and therefore unimportant.*

Nathan, I think that what gay couples want is not necessarily legal protections and whatnot, but the same level of official respect and recognition.

TWEEET! Mind-reading, 50 yards.

*Ya know, sometimes living in a state where the election outcome is considered a forgone conclusion is pretty nice, I don't have this type of crap show up on my radar that often.

[Paul Cella]

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who just happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of their birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of their death." -- G. K. Chesterton

[Edward]

Great quote Paul. Gonna print that one out.

Crionna

My guess is that the desired response of the target audience to this ad is that this little boy will be made womanly if parented by two men or two women. Your neice's experience would be of no relevance to those who respond the way its creators desire, because she's a girl and therefore unimportant.*

You're touching on one of my favorite topics within the context of the American psyche (the need to save the Golden Boy at all costs), and certainly one that deserves its own thread. Albee deconstructed it nicely in "The American Dream" (which I highly recommend for anyone who hasn't read it), but I think his point is more provable within the confines of art than in real life.

[Jesurgislac]

Nathan S claimed: Single parenthood is not something to be ignored or embraced, as some misguided people do. It has demonstrably negative effects on large numbers of children, and should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary.

True, it's better for kids to have two parents than one. Indeed, I'd argue that it's better for kids to have three or four parents than two. Kids are exhausting. And fortunately, a good friend of mine is about to prove that true: she, her girlfriend, and two good friends of theirs (a male couple) are all about to become parents. My friend is pregnant and one of the men is the biological father, but this kid is going to have lots of parenting. Which, you know, if you're of the two-parents-are-better-than-one school, is clearly twice as good.

Incidentallly, what you're missing, Nathan, is that children were warehoused in institutions a lot more often fifty or sixty years ago than they are today, because it's considered acceptable for a mother to bring up kids on her own. A single parent is a damn sight better than an institution for rearing children.

[Dutchmarbel]

Since the gay relationships are existing, and the children out of gay relationships are existing entities too, it seems that the ad actually calls for a vote in favour of homosexual marriage. After all, those kids would want legal ties to both their parents, wouldn't they? And if one parent would die, the other parent should f.i. automatically be the legal guardian (if that is the correct English term). So they should just change a few words:

Why Don't [Ohio] Senators DeWine and Voinovich Believe Every Child Needs Two Parents?

Here's the bottom line: homosexual marriage intentionally creates families. Think about it.

Ohio's senators have said nice things about marriage. But so far they won't take the one step that will improve it. They won't support the right for homosexuals to marry. We thought you would like to know.

Every child understands how important parents are. Help make your senators as smart as a kid. Pick up the phone and tell their staffs you support homosexual marriage rights, and they should too.

If people feel that marriage is a sacred thing and has nothing to do with legal rights and responsibilities than maybe they should try to disconnect marriage from legal partnerships for heterosexuals too. So you could marry someone els by whatever procedure you fancy in whatever religion you fancy, but it has no legal meaning.

[sidereal]

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors."

A stronger argument against tradition I've never heard. For what's more tyrannical than giving a vote to people who don't have to live with the consequences of their choices?

Honestly, I'm more in favor of tradition than this argument would provide for.

[Incognito]

Actually, I think that Chesterton ends up making an argument in favor of tradition. If I remember correctly, the quote comes from 'Orthodoxy,' which is in part Chesterton's reasons for becoming an orthodox Catholic and resting part of his faith in that very tradition. I don't recall if he argued specifically against political tradition, but he was very much in favor of spiritual tradition.
-Incognito

[Nathan S.]

Jesurgislac,

I think that two is almost always better than one here, but I do not think that four is better than two. I think that a "daddy" role and a "mommy" role may very well be a requirement for raising children, mainly by the virtue of their long tradition of existence (heehee).

I can only suspect that more than two parents would lead to confusion for the child and complications in the relationships between parents.

Regarding same-sex parenting, I will just say that I cannot imagine the horror of having two mothers. One is enough, thank you.

[Jesurgislac]

Nathan claimed: I think that two is almost always better than one here, but I do not think that four is better than two. I think that a "daddy" role and a "mommy" role may very well be a requirement for raising children, mainly by the virtue of their long tradition of existence.

Oh, right. So we'll just ignore all the cultures in the world which do things differently, including our own? Not likely, Nathan. Sperm and egg are required to engender children (so far) but if "daddy" and "mommy" were a requirement for raising children, many of the children born to the human race would just never have got raised ... and yet they did. Humans have raised their children in practically every way you can imagine, and - this may surprise you - most children turn out just fine. The one requirement for raising children is, really, to raise them - to be with them, to maintain eye contact and body contact, to hug them and talk to them and play with them and feed them. Children deprived of these things suffer: children provided with these things flourish. Trying to claim that these things can only be successfully provided by a man and a woman is indicative of pure ignorance or pure bigotry: pick one.

I can only suspect that more than two parents would lead to confusion for the child and complications in the relationships between parents.

Well, you can suspect that all you like: in my experience, providing all the parents maintain good adult relationships, there is no problem. Children are more capable than you seem to believe of dealing with several adults who are caring for them.

Regarding same-sex parenting, I will just say that I cannot imagine the horror of having two mothers. One is enough, thank you.

Sexist, too?

[Nathan S.]

"Sexist, too?"

That was a joke about how my mother drives me nuts. Therefore, two would be even worse, eh?

[Seth]

The overall point is, little Timmy in the ad needs to be well-parented. Therefore, isn't it better for little Timmy to be raised in a household where his parents - of whatever gender - be unified in the eyes of their community in a binding partnership? Or, for the sake of showing scoiety's preference for mommy-daddy relationships, should little Timmy's parents be forced to exist in societal limbo, officially disapproved-of?

Maybe little Timmy is glum because Focus on the Family is choosing to Focus on how wrong and bad for society his particular Family is.

[Jesurgislac]

That was a joke about how my mother drives me nuts. Therefore, two would be even worse, eh?

*grin* Sorry. Obvious when you mention it. I think I momentarily lost of my sense of humor.