Death is not worse pain than an empty life. -- Lun Tha

The gay marriage topic has been percolating even here in the Sonoran Desert. A local columnist had this to say:

Robert Robb
Republic columnist


In the debate over gay marriage, liberal supporters have an instructive insight, but not the one they intend.

Opponents, particularly conservative Christians, worry about the effect gay marriage will have on traditional marriage.

Their argument is that expanding the kinds of relationships the state sanctions reduces the primacy given to marriage between a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of civil society.

Liberals believe that it is a devastating rebuttal to this argument to point out the number of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce. Exactly why they think this is so devastating isn't clear, since the minor premise in their syllogism is never explicitly stated.

If their argument is that traditional marriage is already a goner, so there's no point in worrying about it, they're not bold enough to say it.

And it's not true. The overwhelming majority of adults still get married, and most first marriages still endure until the death of a spouse. Most children are still raised within heterosexual marriages.

Moreover, if marriage had lost its primacy as a societal building block, there wouldn't be the clamor to extend it to homosexuals.

Perhaps liberals cite the rising divorce rate to impeach the character of gay marriage opponents: If they're so concerned about traditional marriage, why aren't they trying to do something about the deterioration of heterosexual marriages?
If so, it's an ignorant slur.

Christian churches devote enormous energy and attention to marriage. There's a growing Christian marriage-counseling movement, born in reaction to the emphasis of secular counseling on self-actualization and personal happiness, and the tendency to treat staying in marriage as a utilitarian calculation.

Christian marriage counseling focuses on saving the marriage by stressing duty, obligation, commitment and the redemptive power of faith. The growing evidence of the adverse consequences of divorce is now moving secular counseling in a similar direction.

So, carefully considered, the heterosexual divorce rate as a rebuttal to gay marriage opponents falls utterly flat. But it is a useful reminder that this is not the first time there has been a heated debate over the effect of fundamental reform on traditional marriage.

Beginning in the late 1960s, liberals pushed aggressively for no-fault divorce, in which people, as a practical matter, could get out of marriages at any time and for any reason. It was a hugely successful movement, and no-fault divorce was the norm within a decade.

Supporters said this would be very beneficial. The sum of human happiness would be increased as people were freed to leave unsatisfying marriages.

Marriage would actually be strengthened, since it would be held together by love, not obligation or law. And children would be better off with happier parents, even if they were no longer together.

Opponents, again mainly conservative Christians, said about no-fault divorce what they are now saying about gay marriage: it would erode the primacy of marriage between a man and a woman as the fundamental building block of a civil society.

There are still attempts to put a gloss on the benefits of easy divorce. But the weight of the evidence is now conclusive.

The incidence of marriage has declined somewhat, but the incidence of divorce has nearly doubled. Most couples getting divorced have non-adult children.

Cohabitation has increased tenfold, and a third of cohabiting families include a child.

The percentage of children living with only one parent increased from less than 10 percent to more than 25 percent.

Out-of-wedlock births increased from 5 percent to more than 30 percent.

Most divorces today aren't mutually consensual and aren't for emotional or physical abuse. Divorcees don't tend to be happier, and their children aren't better off.
Practical consequences aren't dispositive of such issues. Ours is a secular, pluralistic society, with a government that, among other things, is supposed to enable the exercise of liberty.

If the government is in the business of conferring benefits based upon a relationship between adults, it will be difficult to draw and maintain distinctions between those relationships.

Moreover, the argument of some gay marriage advocates, most prominently Andrew Sullivan, is worthy of consideration: that marriage can serve the same purpose of reinforcing responsible behavior for homosexuals as it does for heterosexuals.

But to the extent that the question is the effect on traditional marriage, there is a track record: Traditionalists have been right about the consequences of reform and liberal advocates have been wrong.