The Supreme Court has struck down Bill Clinton's signature legislation to protect heterosexual marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibited the federal government from giving perks and goodies to homosexuals that marry. Homosexuals are pleased because it advances their agenda. Obama and leading democrats are pleased because it distracts from all the scandals. Libertarians are pleased because they think government should not be involved in marriage.
The decision (together with the Zimmerman murder trial) have certainly proven a godsend to Mr. Obama, who is suffering through a lavish vacation to Africa. However, as Andrew Klavan explains, homosexuals are being played for the fool:
Still, I can’t help but feel that the real story, the big story, is that gay people, like black Americans before them, are being played for fools by what Andrew Breitbart used to call the Democrat-media complex. Surely, the all-Supreme-Court headlines should really read something like, “GDP shrinks to nothing due to the fact that government is overspending on entitlements while simultaneously spying on American citizens and abusing the power of taxation to suppress political speech at the same time the administration is mishandling world events so that the United States has become an impotent laughing stock whose ambassadors can be murdered at will while tyrants thrive… oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court ruled… something that will make very little difference to the overall state of the nation.”Stephen Green thinks that government should be out of the marriage business entirely. He writes:
Instead — so help me this is true — the New York Times ran a story on the dwindling GDP as if it was a good thing — because the stock market rose when investors decided the Fed wouldn’t stop printing fake money to pump into the economy after all, because the economy still stinks so… whew, that was close! The Huffington Post said the crummy GDP was due to — wait for it — government austerity! Have the folks at HuffPo lost the capacity to blush? As for the IRS and Benghazi scandals — if you’re watching network news, there is, almost literally, nothing to see here. And you can pretty well bet the network news directors will make sure that the next few days will be all gay marriage all the time.
My point is that we are in the grips of a truly corrupt, abusive, incompetent, and philosophically unAmerican administration. If it were led by a white Republican, the media would be disassembling it brick by brick — and rightly so. But it is run by a black Democrat, so instead, reporters are lying, covering up, and shouting “Squirrel!” to distract us whenever the truth starts to emerge.
I understand how emotionally satisfying it must be to win court cases like this — I do. But gay Americans (who, after all, live in the same republic, the same economy, and the same world as straight Americans) ought to get hip to the fact that this time, they’re the squirrel.
[M]arriage shouldn’t come with any tax, health, or government pension benefits. It simply isn’t the government’s business to lavish things on people for being married.Perhaps ... and perhaps with no fault divorce the government crippled the marriage institution so much that it should stop meddling with it any further. But monogamous heterosexual marriage is extremely important to a healthy society, so it behooves the government to protect and nurture it.
David Goldman recently observed:
Whether we think it expedient or not, there is ultimately no compromise with the so-called sexual revolution, because it eventually will kill us: if we fail to subordinate sexual passion to family life, we will join the demographic death-spiral that likely will reduce Europe’s population by nearly half, from today’s 767 million to just 395 million at the end of this century, with nearly half of the survivors over the age of 60. There is no risk in not putting up a fight. I elaborated this argument in my 2011 book How Civilizations Die and in reviews of recent books by the Catholic writers Mary Eberstadt and Robert P George.A reader pointed me to this article on "Monogamy and the Uniqueness of European Civilization." The article is intended as an argument against polygamy (whose supporters, correctly, see acceptance of gay marriage as opening the door to other marriage relationships, including polygamy). However, it is also relevant to the gay marriage argument. The author notes:
[M]onogamy has had socially beneficial effects for Europe. I have argued that monogamy is part of a suite of traits underlying Western individualism, including the nuclear family, exogamy and a de-emphasis on the extended kinship group. (An archeological excavation of a 4600-year old site in modern Germany found evidence for monogamy and exogamy, both strong markers of individualism; PNAS 104 , 18226-18231; the article notes that such findings do not imply the universality of monogamy and exogamy, and indeed, I have it on good authority that graves in Middle Eastern sites indicate extended families; Abraham and his wives as depicted in Genesis would be an example). Monogamy appears to have been essential for Western modernization because it resulted in a low-pressure demographic profile necessary for the accumulation of capital (see here, p. 43): When economic times are poor, there are large numbers of unmarried men and women, whereas in a polygynous society like traditional China, poor economic times simply lowered the price of concubines for wealthy males; all females mated, so there was constant pressure on resources, and strong selective pressure in favor of successful males (see also below).
The article also notes research showing:
Monogamy implies a leveling of reproductive opportunities, so that even wealthy males must confine their mating to a single wife and relatively poor males have the opportunity to mate. On the other hand, polygyny leads to a low-investment style of parenting in which all females mate and males tend to pursue additional mates (i.e., mating effort) rather than putting a large investment in the children of one woman (see here, p. 18).
Whether a nation expressly adopts polygamy, the destruction of the institution of marriage will create a polygamous type of culture, where women increasingly compete for fewer men, resulting in a handful of men essentially enjoying harems (which was the object of the sexual revolution), and many other men left without positive marriage outcomes. Looking at communities where marriage has broken down, we do, in fact, see increased crime rates including rape, murder, assault and robbery. Thus, as marriage continues to be eroded throughout society as a whole, we will gradually see the downward trend in crime reverse.
[N]ormative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide.