Maggie’s recent newsletter on the gender divide and the “new conversation on marriage” has started a real debate on the web. First, The Atlantic conceded her point on changing definitions of marriage and now Juicy Ecumenism (the blog for the Institute on Religion and Democracy) is exploring the same theme. See the excerpt below or go here to read the full article.
On The Atlantic website, Prof. Phillip Cohen takes a closer look at the debate at the heart of Maggie’s recent newsletter on the New Conversation on Marriage and what it means for the gender divide. In essence, Maggie asks (and the Atlantic columnist ponders) the greater implications of the genderless marriage movement that has surrendered on gay marriage while still fighting for the importance of marriage as a whole. But no matter what theory, political or moral, comes into play, Cohen agrees that Maggie has a point–the “new conversation” embracing genderless marriage, “throws in the towel on the ideal of marriage as an institution for maintaining gender distinction.”
Back in the year 2000, in the old new marriage conversation, we said in The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles (a statement I helped to draft):
“Marriage is a universal human institution, the way in which every known society conspires to obtain for each child the love, attention and resources of a mother and father.”
This year, the Institute for American Values released a call for a new marriage conversation, which says instead: “because marriage is the main institution governing the link between the spousal association and the parent-child association, marriage is society’s most pro-child institution.”
That is the difference gay marriage makes in how we converse about marriage.
The New York Times this morning features Rebecca Martinez’s stunning photos of “Reborn” culture: women who “adopt” lifelike baby dolls.
In one of his Ted talks, Prof. Jonathan Haidt said “Football is to war, as porn is to sex,”– that is a way to exercise some ancient drives we are deeply embedded to enjoy.
We live in a culture where ancient drives that had a social purpose are increasingly diverted to activities meaningless in themselves but designed to satisfy those hungers, relatively harmlessly–but also unproductively.
At FamilyScholars.org, the Institute for American Values is sponsoring a Valentine’s Day Symposium with the theme “Advice for a New Conversation on Marriage”. Featuring some of the leading conservative thinkers on marriage and family today, the symposium recognizes that, “we won’t renew marriage without fundamentally reforming the way we discuss marriage.”
Maggie Gallagher’s submission to the symposium, “Three Questions for the New Marriage Movement,” builds on this idea, presenting the, “three great questions I believe we will need to answer to rebuild marriage as the normal, usual, and generally reliable way to raise children.” For more, read the excerpt below or go here for the full article:
Back in the year 2000, in the old new marriage conversation, we said in The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles: “Marriage is a universal human institution, the way in which every known society conspires to obtain for each child the love, attention and resources of a mother and father.” In today’s new marriage conversation, we say “because marriage is the main institution governing the link between the spousal association and the parent-child association, marriage is society’s most pro-child institution.”
SPLC doesn’t seem to care:
Floyd Lee Corkins II pleaded guilty on Wednesday to three criminal counts involving his August 2012 attack on the Washington D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC).
Corkins reportedly told the FBI that he picked his target directly from a “hate map” on the website of the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
The FRC still appears on SPLC’s Washington D.C. “hate map,” which brands the conservative group as “anti-gay.”
Contacted for comment, an SPLC spokesperson would not say whether the organization plans to remove the information from its website.
“We are not commenting” on Corkins’ admission, said the spokesperson, who referred the Washington Free Beacon to a statement released in the wake of the last year’s shooting.
Until now I have supported all bill and commitments of the Left. But there is, today, a deep confusion that gets in the way for me. The freedom of conscience allows me to speak honestly from abroad (Martinique) to the issues for the people of this chamber, whose opinions are diverse. Speaking for French citizens abroad, on the whole, we are opposed to homosexual marriage. The bill proposed would bring down all the structures, values, and understandings that have held together the social world of our archipelago.
This voice of the French overseas must be heard and taken into account. I must speak to the electorate and rectify their confusion about what is happening here and now. The risk here is tremendous, that the government might cause an irreparable rift. The proposed bill does notoffer supplementary liberties in truth. In fact, the proposed bill weakens the already delicate social framework that has bulwarked the Antillean and Anguillan islands in the wake of our liberation from slavery. I will go further: there is even the risk here that the bill would invalidate the pact that has tied us to the Republic of France for 200 years and more.
The New York Times reports on the upcoming tract from the Institute for American Values, titled “A Call for a New Conversation on Marriage” which looks to bring together a pro-marriage coalition that would include gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals. In the article, Maggie Gallagher offers some observation on the potential challenges faced by this effort:
“David’s personal networks are liberal, but his donor networks are quite conservative,” said Maggie Gallagher, who used to work at the Institute for American Values and is a well-known opponent of same-sex marriage. It can be tough to find money for what could be called a centrist agenda, Ms. Gallagher cautioned, adding that there may be more conservatives willing to accept gay allies than liberals willing to publicly support marriage. Some financing, she said, “will be conservative, but the pro-marriage liberals have to step forward, and maybe make it more 50-50.”
Read the entire article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/in-shift-blankenhorn-forges-a-pro-marriage-coalition-for-all.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130130&_r=1&
Canada’s high court upholds the right of Quebec to treat married couples and cohabitors differently. The court noted that imposing marriage on people who choose not to marry is wrong:
“There is great consensus from social scientists, no matter their political stripe, that marriage is different from living together,” said IMFC Manager of Research Andrea Mrozek.
“Unfortunately, the statistical reality is that people living together break up more readily – even if they do eventually wed. They are more likely to have multiple partners. Their children face more problems – higher rates of school dropout, more drug use and an earlier age of sexual initiation. And single parents – typically mothers – are more likely to be poor. These are some of the harsh statistical realities of living together versus getting married, and it is wise to acknowledge this difference,” said Mrozek.
The IMFC points out that providing the same benefits to those living common-law and those who are married contradicts the research, and sends the wrong signal about the importance of marriage for society.
This week, Maggie participated in the panel on “Building a Marriage Culture” as part of the National Review Institute’s summit, “The Future of Conservatism”–a topic that inevitably delved into the importance of intact biological families. A few highlights below, or go here for the full article:
One of the panelists, Doug Mainwaring, spoke of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father.
“For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together, but it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom,” Mainwaring, co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, said.