We just saw on Strollerderby that John McCain, an adoptive father himself, recently said the following, as quoted in the New York Times, "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." Strollerderby goes into all the reasons why this is ludicrous, and how gay adoption has been shown again and again to produce kids just as happy and healthy as those in straight adoptive homes. If you want to humanize this topic, just check out this amazingly great blog by two men who are foster parents to a toddler.
But it reminded us of something John Edwards (remember him?) said back in the day.
In that seminal debate discussion of gay rights led by Tim Russert, Edwards said:
I suspect my two younger children, Emma Claire, who's 9, and Jack, who's 7, will reach the same conclusion that my daughter Cate, who's 25, has reached, which is she doesn't understand why her dad is not in favor of same-sex marriage. And she says her generation will be the generation that brings about the great change in America on that issue.
He may be right. Because it's not just Democratic kids who don't have a problem with gay marriage; plenty of Republican children are as socially liberal as foxy Meghan McCain (heck, she even watches bisexual dating show A Shot at Love, as GQ discovered).
We'd be willing to bet that in another generation or two gay marriage will not only be legal, but also that people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
Reader Comments ( Page 29 of 30)
421. Doofus; that is what I meant, thank you for clarifying. Are you AKA "Doofus Lurker"? Also, you have to remember that PV has no idea what he's talking about.
Ryan Anderson at 8:19AM on Jul 30th 2008
422. I find it entertaining that anything that doesn't lend support PV's position is "extremely rare" and anything that does lend support to his position is "normative" irrespective of the actual frequency.
Ryan Anderson at 8:47AM on Jul 30th 2008
423.
Yes Ryan, I used to be Doofus Lurker.
I decided after I had actually posted more than a few times that I should take Lurker off the name.
:)
As for PV, yes I've noticed that.
I wish I was better at searching for stats, because if PV thinks (which he obviously does) that most divorces are due to boredom with their spouse, he has his head up his ass.
To my knowledge, no-fault divorce basically means that the parties involved no longer have to "prove" to the Court that they have grounds for a divorce, thereby taking up less of the Courts' time as well as maintaining the privacy of the couple. Could be wrong, but that is my understanding.
In my opinion, parents who "stay together for the sake of the kids" are doing the kids no favors.
Doofus at 9:14AM on Jul 30th 2008
424. Doofus: In my opinion, parents who "stay together for the sake of the kids" are doing the kids no favors.
PV: The first set of kids are thrown under the bus in divorce. The parents move on to new families and even new states (even multiple times) to which the first set of kids are mostly foreigners and outcasts. Full abandonment of the kids by one spouse is common. Poverty hits the single moms at high rates. At best, the kids are shuffled all over and have no stable society on which they can rely to build their future.
Staying together for the team is the most loving thing parents can do, and they are sworn to it contractually. Likewise, hitting the reset button because the romance is gone gives the middle finger to the needs of all members simply to meet the selfish individual needs of an adult who launched the whole enterprise to begin with. Divorce is totally unjust, unfair, and unloving to children. Marriage is *not* a romance contract. It is a family contract.
preteristvision at 9:35AM on Jul 30th 2008
425. PV: let me know if this is an accurate restatement of your position.
Muslims and Chinese are breeding faster than Western Christians, and since Muslims and Chinese are evil, we should enforce antiquated cultural institutions to ensure that Western Christians breed faster than evil Muslims and Chinese.
Ryan Anderson at 9:41AM on Jul 30th 2008
426. PV,
Are you a child of divorced parents? Because my parents divorced when I was 10, and you have no fucking clue what the hell you are talking about. I was never in poverty. My father didn't abandon me. I CHOSE to move to a different state with my father, and when I didn't like it I CHOSE to move back with my mother. I have lived in the same state, with my mother, for 18 years. I have a stable job, a stable income, I've never been in any legal trouble except for 1 ticket, I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs. I work for the government. My mother never remarried. My father remarried and has had no new children.
In the years leading to the divorce, my father was caught many times with all kinds of porn and sex toys he tried to hide from my mother, a seperate post office box at the post office my mom didn't find out about for years, and seperate credit cards she knew nothing about but had to help pay the debts for. After the divorce, my dad bad mouthed my mother to me, my sister, and everyone else. He tried to turn my paternal side of the family against us and her by telling blatant lies. My father was extremely hateful towards my mother. And you're trying to tell me they should have stayed together? Does that sound like a stable environment for kids to be raised in? Who is feeding you this shit?
K at 11:14AM on Jul 30th 2008
427. K: I was never in poverty. My father didn't abandon me.
PV: I have not been talking about abusive or violent parents. I thought I made that clear.
I am talking about parents who lose the romance and then split because they deem their individual selfish needs as more important than the the collective needs of the entire family.
My comments are not intended to cover every single broken up family that has ever existed. They are intended to address the normative issues facing victims of divorce in the vast majority of cases. That your parents didn't go on to start other families with other kids, moms, and dads is *rare* indeed. You were spared some of the most complicating and painful issues surrounding divorce and remarriage.
preteristvision at 12:28PM on Jul 30th 2008
428. Same ol' PV. You pick and choose what to reply to. You choose to totally ignore questions posed to you unless you have a prepared statement from the Catholic church you can regurgitate. Your tone is one of an arragant know-it-all. You use only abolsutes here, no "most" or "many." So I replied to set you straight that many of your assumptions are totally baseless, and probably the product of someone who has never experienced divorce from any angle. Am I right?
K at 12:53PM on Jul 30th 2008
429. PV: "My comments are not intended to cover every single broken up family that has ever existed"
Wow... just as an FYI, everything you say conveys the tone that you expect it to apply to 100% of the situations.
Ryan Anderson at 1:05PM on Jul 30th 2008
430. To K and Ryan,
I never intend to convey that my comments hold true in 100% of cases. I speak only about vast majorities, for that's what laws are based around.
Laws are never based on rare exceptions to a rule. They are based on the rule. Rare exceptions are not significant enough to overthrow the rule, or even factor in to the discussion.
preteristvision at 2:37PM on Jul 30th 2008
431. PV: 2%-4% isn't rare. It's a minority.
Ryan Anderson at 3:08PM on Jul 30th 2008
432. I understand what you are saying Preter -
"Adults who exit when the romance goes away are using their selfish individual needs to destroy the needs of the entire group."
And you did come off saying that "no-fault" divorce basically ruined the traditional marriage - traditional being people getting married because they are in lust or a woman felt that was what women traditionally did - she got that from her mother - and her mother before her. Then instead of working on their marriage they took the easy way out when they lost that lovin' feeling. You are right. My sibling's case was exactly that - his wife just decided that she never really loved him, she was not "in-love" with him. He was crushed - really, really crushed but to much of a pussy to fight, he rolled over, let her kick him out of their house and basically let her have the house and they share the kids equally. It seems his new girlfriend is of the same mind, but she doesn't like her ex much. So I have to agree to some point. But the fact is, I can't judge them - I don't live in their house. I wouldn't know what choice I would make, I've never been in that position even after 20 years of marriage.
I'm angry at the whole mess of it, but it is what it is and it's not my place to place judgment on anyone.
It think Doofus and K are right. Maybe no-fault made it easier for those who were in abusive relationships to end their marriages. I'm sure there is always guilt involved whether it be guilt for staying or even getting into that relationship in the first place or for maybe thinking they weren't enough of a reason for the abuser to change. Or guilt for dragging kids into the mix.
Americans still have this "American Dream" mentality and that includes traditional marriage or the idea of marriage to one person for the rest of your life - none of us really wants to be alone and isn't that really all it is - bad decisions and all?
TJ at 7:56PM on Jul 30th 2008
433. TJ: Then instead of working on their marriage they took the easy way out when they lost that lovin' feeling.
PV: Yes, they seek out because they signed on to a "romance contract" instead of a "family contract"---and marriage has traditionally been a family contract. Romance leaves us all, and often it can be renewed with good planning---but not always. But romance is hardly the reason for the family anyway, so the loss of romance doesn't hinder the family goals. If people went to the altar with some sort of "long-range family" mindset, the divorce rate could be lowered by perhaps 20%.
TJ: You are right. My sibling's case was exactly that - his wife just decided that she never really loved him, she was not "in-love" with him. He was crushed - really, really crushed but to much of a pussy to fight, he rolled over, let her kick him out of their house and basically let her have the house and they share the kids equally. It seems his new girlfriend is of the same mind, but she doesn't like her ex much. So I have to agree to some point. But the fact is, I can't judge them
PV: Sounds like you have good clarity on the issue. Sometimes people need to be urged to "do the right thing," or even think twice before they act. I think many people can see what's going right or wrong with others they care about---but they never say anything, and the result is that people end up suffering needlessly from the reckless behavior.
TJ: I'm angry at the whole mess of it, but it is what it is and it's not my place to place judgment on anyone.
PV: You may not be in the place to say something, but perhaps you are. Again, often we need others to be strong and caring enough to tell us when we're wrong. Even the most stubborn people can be taught to think about the needs of the whole group and to occasionally "take one for the team" if it means the whole will benefit.
Hitting the "reset" button on a marriage doesn't solve anything. It often means repeating the same pattern, often with new unforeseen challenges. People have to start thinking about our families again. We have to balance our radical individualism with some collective team-oriented thinking, or we're doomed as a people and nation.
preteristvision at 8:22PM on Jul 30th 2008
434. PV: Just as "no-fault divorce" legally redefined marriage from a "permanent family" contract to a "temporary family" contract, the proposed "gay marriage" redefinition changes marriage from a temporary family contract into a "temporary romance" contract. ...But just in case you haven't thought through it, the two contracts have different goals, different obligations, and different penalties for breach of contract. As such, civil unions and marriage *must* remain as two separate social contracts.
...
preteristvision at 12:05PM on Jul 29th 2008
========================
In a previous post, you said:
"More than half of all marriages end in divorce. ...mommy and daddy move on to new romances to do it all over again...and again...."
You already view the "no-fault divorce" result as a "temporary romance" contract. That is your primary complaint about it. And please, name the current *legally* defined goals, obligations, and breach penalties of marriage - not your religious take on how the Catholic church defines it - and how it would differ for a same sex couple.
I found an example of the *legal* aspects of marriage at the 'Lectric Law Library:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m087.htm
And just for the record, are you in fact *endorsing* the provision of civil union for same sex couples? If so, what rights and obligations would ensue? If not, why bring up the distinction?
Here is a study on the effects on hetero marriage and divorce rates in the aftermath of same-sex partnerships in Denmark:
(Darren Spedale, William Eskridge and Hans Ytterberg "Nordic Bliss? Scandinavian Registered Partnerships and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate", Journals of Legal Scholarship:Issues in Legal Scholarship i.5, The Berkeley Electronic Press, January 2004 - http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss5/art4/)
[summary: for heterosexuals, marriage had gone up, and rates of divorce had gone down]
Toad at 2:17PM on Jul 29th 2008
Toad at 9:58PM on Jul 30th 2008
435. Toad: You already view the "no-fault divorce" result as a "temporary romance" contract.
PV: It is probably more accurate to trace the development this way: No fault divorce changed marriage from a "permanent family" contract to a "temporary family" contract---one dissolvable without penalty when romance departs. Gay marriage redefines things even further, turning marriage into a "temporary romance" contract. And remember, this law, once codified, becomes the same law for everyone. And the children are the ones who have been thrown under the bus from the radical legal redefinition of marriage as a "romance contract."
Toad: please, name the current *legally* defined goals, obligations, and breach penalties of marriage - not your religious take on how the Catholic church defines it - and how it would differ for a same sex couple.
PV: Obviously, a permanent family contract and a temporary romance contract are entirely different enterprises, with different goals, duties, and ends. The State's interest in the "permanent family" contract is obvious: that contractual relationship is responsible for creating, educating, and nurturing the citizenry. So, the State has a definite interest in protecting that foundational cell of which it is comprised. The State has no real interest in awarding legal benefits for romance. There's no concrete benefit to the State.
Toad: And just for the record, are you in fact *endorsing* the provision of civil union for same sex couples?
PV: If there are legitimate benefits that could be gained from the creation of a civil unions contract, I suspect it would have legs. But that would not apply to gays alone. It could apply to any group of people who wish to establish said union and receive the same state benefits. Perhaps co-workers could enter said union. Perahps old friends could enter said union, etc. etc.
preteristvision at 12:22PM on Jul 31st 2008