Conservatives Urge Closer Look at Marriage

[AnIndependentTexan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041121/ap_on_re_us/protecting_marriage

Sun Nov 21,12:47 PM ET

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.


"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.


While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.


"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."


Gay-rights supporters, during their recent losing battles against gay-marriage bans in 11 states, often argued that if marriage in America was in fact troubled, it was heterosexuals — not gays — who bore the blame.


"That was the best argument same-sex marriage advocates had: 'Where were you when no-fault divorce went through?'" said Allan Carlson, a conservative scholar who runs a family-studies center in Rockford, Ill. "Any thoughtful defender of marriage has to say, 'You're right. We were asleep at the switch in the '60s and '70s.'"

[ibegurpard]

1. Address "deliberate childlessness"???

WTF?

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Omigod! Deliberate childlessness! Oh, God, Oh, God! These

people are NUTS! And they're also going to make it harder to get a divorce? Oh, this is just too sad. I guess they like their women beat up.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Their definition of marriage seems to be

to procreate and raise children, period. Nothing else.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I intend to make a lot of money from this

Can you say "For Profit Battered Women's Shelter"?

[MaryH]

5. Temple Mormons are not supposed to get divorced.

Once you are sealed in the Temple you will be together for eternity. That's Mormon religion. It is also part of that religion that the only glory women can have in heaven is through their husband and the number of children they have.

B. Young even had himself sealed to women who wouldn't have anything to do with him in life because he thought that way they would be with him in heaven.

Some people have gotten divorced - like Marie Osmond and I wondered how they managed that. Maybe they have a way to unseal married people now.

All that happens when you don't allow divorce is that people separate and go live with someone else - in an unmarried relationship. But that is considered adultery - I think.

[unblock]

6. i've always said the antiabortionists were actually for "forced pregnancy"

and no one believed me.

[MaryH]

7. No, that is an important but unspoken part of the debate

Women need to stay home and be with the children - that is what makes the family the most important unit in society. To do that women have to be subservient to the husband.

Part of this whole thing is to do away with birth control. Look what happens to women when there is no birth control. They either remain unmarried and childless - or they are married with as many children as their body can produce.

As long as there is no birth control women are in big trouble.

[Amich]

8. In our voter book here in Oregon.

If the ban passed they were looking at also doing:

women who get a hysterectomy can not marry or will need to get divorced.

if a woman does not get pregnant with in two years she has to get divorced.

If you divorce you cannot get remarried.

there were a couple of others but I can't remember them.

[eleny]

9. "Deliberately childless" - guilt as charged

And it's mine and hubby's business, thank you very much.

Now that that's out of the way - The article is a bunch of hogwash. Those people are only dealing with the "problem" on the back end. Divorce and tax laws won't save marriage. Marrieds with kids already get tax breaks for their chosen lifestyle. People are attending church in record numbers. Yet, divorce rates are still high.

My analysis of the positions that the radical, white fundamentalist clerics take is that they don't like seeing the numbers of white people dwindling. I believe that it scares their homophobic core to no end. The idea of the earth being inhabited by a coffee colored humanity drives them teaspoons. They'll give lip service to their brothers and sisters in the black churches. But like this administration will grab votes and then turn their back on the Baptists, so too will the white Baptist fundies turn their backs when people of color get dragged to death behind trucks.

Anyhow, they start grabbing at straws like taxes and marriage education. And then crucify the homosexual - the innocent bystanders to the failure of their beloved marriage institution. I picture the gay community standing at the curb watching the marriage parade go by as the floats crash and burn only to be blamed for the mess because they ask for their place at the table. Sheesh!

Even Chris Matthews gets it right once in a while. The other night night he interviewed the head of the Southern Baptist Conference who was insisting that we need to encourage women to marry the father of their children. It was the last minute of the broadcast and Matthews pointed out that a marriage can only be strong when that father has a job that will support the family. It left the radical fundie with his mouth agape and no time left to reply. An interesting tableau. After all, this isn't a chicken and egg question to toy over. Marriage is wedded to economics.

I think that the fundies don't have a damned clue about why marriages are falling apart left and right. I think their rigid view of life and spirituality, blind to realities, is a part of the problem. And scapegoating lefties and gays is their deliberate sin.

(I posted this response earlier in another thread speaking to this same Yahoo article.)