Marriage Equality is Good for Families
Here in Connecticut, the supreme court has ruled that barring same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Fantastic news.
Except that it is perfectly timed to mobilize the conservative base to get out and vote on November 4. And here in Connecticut, that is a very scary possibility because on the ballot is a proposal for a Constitutional Convention. This would allow delegates from the general populace to make changes to the state's constitution. The proposal was created and is being pushed by the religious right, namely the "Family Institute."
I read through some of the Family Institute's website, to try to understand their logic. They call what they do "protection of marriage." And then they go on to cite all of the statistics and studies that have shown that children growing up in 2 parent homes do better on all kinds of measures. And that men who are married live longer, healthier lives.
But the part that is so brain-explodingly frustrating is that same sex marriages don't preclude heterosexual people from getting married and staying married. So absolutely none of these statistics are relevant. Not one.
Unless and until you read Doug Muder's amazing article, "Red Family, Blue Family":
http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html
And then the reasons they argue this way all begin to make sense. Marriage is a received obligation. Any negotiation, any opening up of the boundaries around it, destroys it entirely.
Except that it doesn't. Divorce rates in blue states are lower than in red states. Apparently, treating marriage as a received obligation actually does harm to families, to the institution of marriage, to the prospects for all of those good benefits from 2 parent households and long healthy lives. Whereas when people see marriage as a negotiated (rather than received) obligation, they enter into the commitment and stay.
Imagine that.
Please?
Except that it is perfectly timed to mobilize the conservative base to get out and vote on November 4. And here in Connecticut, that is a very scary possibility because on the ballot is a proposal for a Constitutional Convention. This would allow delegates from the general populace to make changes to the state's constitution. The proposal was created and is being pushed by the religious right, namely the "Family Institute."
I read through some of the Family Institute's website, to try to understand their logic. They call what they do "protection of marriage." And then they go on to cite all of the statistics and studies that have shown that children growing up in 2 parent homes do better on all kinds of measures. And that men who are married live longer, healthier lives.
But the part that is so brain-explodingly frustrating is that same sex marriages don't preclude heterosexual people from getting married and staying married. So absolutely none of these statistics are relevant. Not one.
Unless and until you read Doug Muder's amazing article, "Red Family, Blue Family":
http://www.gurus.org/dougdeb/politics/209.html
And then the reasons they argue this way all begin to make sense. Marriage is a received obligation. Any negotiation, any opening up of the boundaries around it, destroys it entirely.
Except that it doesn't. Divorce rates in blue states are lower than in red states. Apparently, treating marriage as a received obligation actually does harm to families, to the institution of marriage, to the prospects for all of those good benefits from 2 parent households and long healthy lives. Whereas when people see marriage as a negotiated (rather than received) obligation, they enter into the commitment and stay.
Imagine that.
Please?