Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One Man, One Woman
I am a traditionalist and I seem to find myself in a tiny minority. Sometimes it feels like a minority of one, though I know that there must be a few others who share my views.
There has been a tremendous Leftward shift in many public attitudes over the past 20 years or so, with homosexuality being one of the most notable changes. I have been shocked and mystified by this shift. Within my adult lifetime, we’ve gone from widespread condemnation of homosexuality itself to widespread condemnation of opposition to homosexuality. This seems to have happened even on the political Right, among people who consider themselves conservatives, including many of you, dear readers.
This shift in attitude has coincided with a widespread campaign of propaganda, misrepresentations, vilification, and slander. The campaign has been carried out by the Wokeist methods of “cancel” culture, which so many of you appear to condemn. Yet many of you seem to have accepted the radical Leftist conclusion on this issue. And, strangely, you still seem to consider yourselves conservatives. What, precisely, do you think that you are conserving? Low capital gains tax rates?
My first complaint, frankly, is about the public discussion on this issue. This is supposed to be a “center-right” website. I listen to a great many of the podcasts. Perhaps I am forgetting someone, but I cannot think of one single podcast at this website that advocates the traditional moral view of homosexuality. You know, that it’s a bad thing, and should not be supported in the law in any way, and certainly not elevated to a status equal with the traditional family: one man, one woman. Can you name any single Ricochet podcast host who takes this position?
Even if you can think of one, or a handful, isn’t it strange that the consensus position on this issue is so entirely one-sided?
In my case, I thought homosexuality was a bad thing even back when I was an atheist. Now, as a follower of Jesus, I have His clear teaching on this point, particularly as applied to marriage:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” [Matthew 19:3-6.]
In this statement, by the way, Jesus was quoting Genesis, so this is the Jewish teaching as well. Recognition of homosexuality as a bad thing has been the near-universal teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years, and of Judaism for around 3,500 years and I understand that Muslims agree about this point, as well.
I realize that not everyone shares my Christian faith, but doesn’t it strike you as strange that, at a supposedly conservative website, I can’t think of one single podcaster or one single contributor who holds to this traditional view?
Eric Weinstein has two interesting ideas applicable here. He posits the existence of the DISC (Distributed Information Suppression Complex) and the GIN (Gated Institutional Narrative). He describes the DISC as a loosely coupled emergent structure, not under central control, that suppresses ideas and protects institutions from individuals who have valid and reasonable points. (Further explanation here.) The GIN is a sociological method whereby the media and political classes misrepresents or, perhaps more often, omits stories and viewpoints that do not fit the preferred narrative. (Further explanation here.)
Many of you may not know Eric Weinstein or his brother, Bret Weinstein, they’re certainly no conservatives. If you think that I am some closed-minded troglodyte, you should realize that I listen to them quite regularly, along with other non-traditional and even Left-leaning thinkers (among them Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, and Jonathan Haidt; and if you think that any of them are conservatives, then maybe you’re not actually very conservative).
Back to my main point: I get the impression that traditional Protestant conservatives are almost nowhere to be found, here at a supposedly conservative website. According to the 2016 exit polls (here), Protestants were the largest single religious group — 52% of the electorate — and they voted for Trump over Clinton 56% to 39%. Breaking it down further, the biggest religious sub-group was “white born-again or evangelical Christians,” 26% of the electorate, supporting Trump 80%-16%. Catholics were the next largest group, 23% of the electorate, narrowly supporting Trump (50%-46%).
If you do the math, votes for Trump from white evangelicals, people like me, were 21% of all votes cast. Protestant votes for Trump were about 30% of all votes cast. The President carried about 46% of the popular vote; so about 2/3 of his support was from Protestants, and almost half of his support was from white evangelicals.
This wasn’t a Trump thing, by the way. According to the 2012 exit polls (here), white evangelicals were 26% of the electorate in 2012 as well, and supported Romney 78%-21%.
So why can I not think of one single podcaster or contributor at Ricochet in this demographic? I mean, how can folks like me simultaneously be the largest group in the Republican electorate and an apparently endangered species?
OK, I know, David French…. but give me a break. He was on the pro-SSM side, for crying out loud.
Back to homosexuality. I reject the idea that the debate is over. Peter Hitchens, the public intellectual who is probably most closely aligned with my own views, called the SSM debate a “pointless Stalingrad.” His attitude is that the battle for Christian civilization was lost with no-fault divorce. But he’s a Brit, and I’m an American. I have not yet begun to fight.
While I’m not terribly fond of an analogy that places me in the position of the Red Army, I note that Stalingrad was not pointless. Stalingrad was the turning point. There could be no Kursk, no driving the Nazis out of the Motherland, no fall of Berlin unless the enemy was stopped at Stalingrad. You have to fight on the ground on which you find your enemy.
It is utterly bizarre to me that I seem to be almost alone in this position. This has been the official Republican Party platform since at least 1992. A review is in order.
1992 Republican Party Platform (here):
The culture of our Nation has traditionally supported those pillars on which civilized society is built: personal responsibility, morality, and the family. Today, however, these pillars are under assault. Elements within the media, the entertainment industry, academia, and the Democrat Party are waging a guerrilla war against American values. They deny personal responsibility, disparage traditional morality, denigrate religion, and promote hostility toward the family’s way of life. Children, the members of our society most vulnerable to cultural influences, are barraged with violence and promiscuity, encouraging reckless and irresponsible behavior.
. . .
We also stand united with those private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, who are defending decency in fulfillment of their own moral responsibilities. We reject the irresponsible position of those corporations that have cut off contributions to such organizations because of their courageous stand for family values. Moreover, we oppose efforts by the Democrat Party to include sexual preference as a protected minority receiving preferential status under civil rights statutes at the federal, State, and local level.
1996 Republican Party Platform (here):
We are the party of the American family, educating children, caring for the sick, learning from the elderly, and helping the less fortunate. We believe that strengthening family life is the best way to improve the quality of life for everyone.
Families foster the virtues that make a free society strong. We rely on the home and its supportive institutions to instill honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect and the other virtues that sustain democracy. . . .
This is the clearest distinction between Republicans and Clinton Democrats: We believe the family is the core institution of our society. Bill Clinton thinks government should hold that place.
. . .
Our agenda for more secure families runs throughout this platform. Here we take special notice of the way congressional Republicans have advanced adoption assistance, promoted foster care reform, and fought the marriage penalty in the tax code. . . . They passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines “marriage” for purposes of federal law as the legal union of one man and one woman and prevents federal judges and bureaucrats from forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as “marriages.”
2000 Republican Party Platform (here):
We support the traditional definition of “marriage” as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.
2004 Republican Party Platform (here):
We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
2008 Republican Party Platform (here):
Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.
Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.
2012 Republican Party Platform (here):
The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage.
2016 Republican Party Platform (here):
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent.
I understand that the conservative movement and the Republican Party need to be a big tent, but for crying out loud, I’m the guy whose right foot is pinned under that big pole at the center of the tent. How can it be that I am pretty much alone, in the very middle of the crowd?
I’ll tell you why I think this is: I think that our side has been cowed by the slanderous vilification peddled by the radical Left. I think that it has been internalized by a great many people who think that they are conservatives. Some of them may actually believe it and many more may feel afraid to speak.
I don’t think that Ricochet actively tries to silence traditional conservative voices. It may be as simple as the fear of losing advertising revenue, and the advertisers may themselves react with fear to the Wokeist mob. It may be that the podcast lineup is drawn from people who have already gained prominence in the institutional media, and who have therefore already been filtered by the DISC (distributed information suppression complex) to ensure some degree of compliance with the GIN (gated institutional narrative).
So what to do about the mess that we are in?
I go back to the beginning. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That’s Genesis 1.
Next, He created man, in His own image. It was not good for the man to be alone, so God created woman. That’s Genesis 2, affirmed by Jesus as quoted earlier, and affirmed again in our own Declaration of Independence.
“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24. That’s marriage. One man, one woman.
So it seems to me that these are the foundations. Faith in God. Marriage and family.
This is where I am going to take my stand. Alone if necessary. Let me know whether or not I am alone in this.
BLM delenda est.
Published in Marriage
Here is a Gallup poll showing that 67 percent support same sex marriage.
U.S. Support for Same Sex Marriage Matches Record High
And even among Republicans support for Same Sex Marriage is 49 percent.
Sort of. I was asking, is it an action that you take? You seem to agree with me that it isn’t an action you take. If that’s the case then talk of someone stopping you from taking this action is a non sequitur.
So let’s talk about the status itself. What is it for? I think marriage has been about a very specific condition. I dont think it’s really about the individuals even. It definitely isn’t about acceptance or some kind if secular blessing, and especially not that if there are no longer many (any) duties or obligations imposed.
Are there other conditions which might benefit us (society) if there were a status for it? My general inclination is “no” because without the procreative factor there’s really not much reason for a civil authority to impose itself into individual choices over and above what it already offers (to property owners for instance).
To the extent that there is a useful package for correlated issues like taxes, wills, power of attorney like powers, etc then I think something like a limited civil union could have been a genuine advance/improvement. However, it would be fundamentally different from marriage in purpose and probably function. It wouldnt be sexual or about acceptance; there would be little to no reason to keep it permanent, exclusive, or monogamous.
I think “getting married” is similar to “getting a driver’s license.” An individual takes an action, applies for the marriage license or driver’s license. But the state either grants or does not grant the license.
The state has its criteria, its qualifications or requirements. The individual or individuals, in the case of marriage, take an action to initiate the process.
But it does. Women past menopause can get married, the State has no problem with that. (And I suspect you wouldn’t either.) Women and men stay married well after their time of fertility – whether they had children or not – and again, nobody finds that strange. In fact it’s expected, it’s a good thing.
Clearly marriage evolved around procreation, but that is no longer a constraint or limiting factor in the West.
Does a couple benefit from being permanent, exclusive or monogamous even if they don’t have children?
Really interesting, thank you, especially the Right/Left difference.
It’s possible that in a few years a majority of Republicans will support same sex marriage, given that the number now is already at 49 percent.
So, perhaps at some time in the future the Republican platform will not endorse marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
We are all deplorable sinners.
We are going to hell.
Some of us want to win elections. Others want to feel morally superior.
maybe the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage licensing?
I can see lots of reasons why the state is involved in marriage licensing. For one, in a community property state like my home state of Indiana, being married has implications regarding inheritance.
If one is going to advocate that the state not issue any marriage licenses, one would have to explain how this would impact people who are already married under the “old regime” and also those who had thought about getting married for one reason or another.
Will these people who had wanted to get married be able to obtain what they hoped they could obtain by getting married by some alternative means?
If children and divorce weren’t involved, that might be a solution. But, marriage between a man and a woman does deserve special societal recognition and the imposition of certain responsibilities.
It’s so weird how 3rd wave feminism coincided with divorce culture when marriage protects women by design.
It’s different in that people are confused on marriage but not when it comes to drivers licenses. Nobody says “I got drivered today. “
And yes, in many instances the process must be initiated by an individual, but that doesn’t make marriage or drivers licenses an action an individual can take. It remains an action that the relevant authority takes. It is about the authority and its interests, not about the individuals and their interests.
In the case of driving, not accepting your application results in it being illegal fro you to drive a vehicle. In the case of marriage, no application makes it illegal for you to…. what? You remain free to love, have sex, cohabitate, win property jointly, have a will.
Then there are the cases where the status is imposed even if no application is made, i.e. common law marriage. Or forced/arranged marriage in some cultures.
Marriage is a different animal altogether, and determining its purpose as opposed to the purposes of individuals who might want to participate) is the central question.
For a variety of reasons the decision point regarding marriage is more generalized and less specific. Now that we know so much more about biology, we have essentially two choices: either start drilling down into more individual details or continue on with the general proxy that has worked so well for so long. I vote we continue withe the generalized less intrusive proxy.
As for marriage continuing even after fertility passes, one of the major points was permanence. It kind if defeats the purpose to break things up after fertility as if they can start fresh in any way they want. They can’t, generally. They made a choice and in most cases that involves sacrifice for the larger entity. Permanence is supposed to be a protection against being left high and dry and vulnerable after giving the best years of your life expecting to have the strength of the couple as opposed to being cast off on your own.
Thank you for acknowledging the fact of the matter in the history and purpose of marriage. I’ve found resistance to that. I suspect that’s because my interlocutors think it would give away too much ground and might not leave enough for them to stand on.
As far as not being a constraint or limiting factor, I’m not quite sure what you mean. Society still clearly has an interest in procreation because of the potential positive or negative effects, in any case lasting and deep effects.
It’s not about the couple. The couple will do what the couple will do. Living as if you were married, that is jointly as part of a new social entity, will usually benefit the individuals involved in many ways. That can happen or not whether or not civil marriage is even a thing .
I disagree because I think the society has an interest in procreation, but then again I would still have the sacrament if the state simply ceased civil marriage.
For those who aren’t religious, they could rely on existing contract and property law. They could do what they want without any intrusion from anyone else.
Then there are those who like the legitimizing function being played by the state. If they’re not religious, then they have nowhere to go to get their legitimacy and approval.
What does that mean? What reasons?
We’ve known about menopause for a long time. (Like, literally thousands of years.) It isn’t something new that we’ve recently learned about human biology.
Clearly accepting that menopausal women can get legitimately married does not stem from the belief that they might fall pregnant.
Clearly such marriages are seen as appropriate and legitimate and genuine, even when they cannot be procreative.
The question is: why this acceptance? What are the reasons for it?
And given this acceptance, the procreative constraint posited when discussing SSM is not valid because it is clearly not consistent.
It’s also interesting that some arguments here articulate the issue along the lines of preserving marriage for heterosexual partners. But that’s not what Civil marriage is today, in both the US and Australia. Limiting it to heterosexual partners would be a matter of changing marriage from what it is today (inclusive) to exclude gay partners from it. Why is this so easy to forget?
I’ve just been rehearsing the arguments against SSM to start with. We can get into more detail on the history of marriage and how it probably started as a holy or semi mystical institution with the force of civil law and eventually split to become sacramental and civil; we can talk about the overlap and stickiness even after the separation; we can talk about how it would be consistent and fairly easy to exclude the known infertile/impotent from civil marriage. We can talk about how that would have been a major change to what existed before and why we shouldn’t have taken that step and how making that decision wouldn’t lock us into making this other huge change (SSM) despite the inconsistency.
However, as I said I tend not to talk about it much anymore because it’s a done deal. The supreme court imposed a flawed notion of marriage on us, short circuiting a more organic change and experimentation. They decided for us and I see no realistic possibility of going back. What we have left is a zombie institution with little societal purpose except as a vehicle for providing benefits. The interesting thing to me is whether society will eventually reintroduce something specific andimited and impactful like civil marriage used to be. Will we get to marriage plus. Civil unions through the back door only with “marriage” actually meaning what I would consider to be a civil union?
This is not the Catholic sacramental view. From the CCC #1623:
Returning to the point of the OP, then, one would expect roughly half of Ricochet contributors and podcasters to oppose SSM if they were a representative sample of conservatives.
I was speaking more broadly, but even there the authority is Christ. From a more practical standpoint too, it isn’t going to happen unless the priest approves.
We don’t know that they don’t. SSM is seldom a topic of the podcasts. I find it hard to believe that the roster is pro-SSM; Dave Carter? Really? The difference between them and this post is, they aren’t making opposition to homosexuality in general–not just SSM–central to their political lives. They don’t bring it up, not because they are fanatical pro-SSM, but because it’s got too little political potential. Like abolishing the TVA, or taking back the Panama Canal, it was a once-active issue that’s in the rear view mirror now, and too few people care about it to bring it back.
If I’m wrong about that, where’s the evidence? The March for Life shows us what social conservatives are willing to do to keep an issue alive. After five years of caterwauling about same sex marriage, there’s no national backlash, no political impact.
I’m not one of those people who perennially likes to find fault with everything Ricochet does or doesn’t do with programming. They didn’t promise me a totally tailored blogging experience made for my exact opinions, or anyone else’s.
So… stuff that the upper class English are into? Australia is weird.
Traditions of the Royal Navy?
A new made-up one, that hasn’t existed throughout human history?
Sometimes this comes down to the source of rights, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, or The State. Every nanny-state liberal thinks they come from the state and that the state can declare rights, rights such as the “right to health care” or “the right to a living wage”. Nonsense, led by fools such as Obama and Hillary.
You still get it wrong though – the husband and wife are the ministers of the sacrament – the action of individuals. The priest (or deacon) is only the witness.
I don’t think I’m wrong that the governing authority in the sacrament of marriage is God. It’s God bringing the spouses together in marriage, not the spouses’ expressions of consent.
As far as the role of priests: I don’t think I’m wrong that from a practical standpoint there will be no expressing of consent before the Church unless approved by the the Church and it’s representatives (priests and deacons) beforehand. No ceremony whether during mass or on its own will be performed unless the priest allows it, usually after an interview and something like Pre-Cana. The participants are either going to do it properly (the way the Church tells them to) or it’s just not going to happen or be recognized.
You’re both right.