The Cato Institute’s David Boaz blogs, Krauthammer Misreads History:
Charles Krauthammer calls same-sex marriage “the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history.” Really? . . . I would suggest that the truly radical redefinition of marriage is the revolution over the past generation in the idea that people should marry before they cohabit or have children. . . .But like socially conservative politicians, Krauthammer is not about to confront his friends, colleagues, and fans by denouncing that radical redefinition of marriage.
9 Comments for “Redefining Marriage: Good for Me but Not for Thee”
posted by Lymis on
Personally, I would say that the redefinition of marriage so that the man and the woman involved are legally equal individuals, rather than that the woman’s legal identity is bound to her husband’s, including not being able to earn her own money, own property, or enter into legal contracts, what a far bigger change in marriage – redefining the very concept of women as people.
Or, before that, the redefinition of marriage as something chosen by the individuals who marry rather than by their parents or community, seems pretty radical, too.
By contrast, adding in same-sex couples to the already allowed pool of people who marry but cannot conceive children together, whether by age, accident, or medical condition, is pretty minor.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Excellent point Lymis.
Since gay couples are required to adhere to the same standards and requirements as op sex, hetero couples, there IS no redefinition that’s radical. There isn’t any LEGAL redefinition whatsoever.
And a gay couple’s inclusion, isn’t THAT radical, or radical at all. We’re talking about people who in the cases of the plaintiffs in litigation over marriage, have been well established, longtime couples.
A hetero couple doesn’t have to know each other, let alone actually be in love or show a pattern of commitment to have the ability to legally marry.
Whereas, gay couples, in the courts and public opinion have to prove to have been more responsible and committed than straight people.
So in a way, the opposition is redefining marriage in public opinion beyond what it actually is.
Hyperbolic reactions because it’s gay couples, still isn’t the truth. This ISN’T that big a deal and not a theory as to how society will be with marriage equality.
Nothing negative, or that validated the hyperbole or theories EVER came true.
So, discrimination still, at this point in time…is essentially spiteful, not pragmatic.
And not spite, nor animus ever made good law either.
posted by Amicus on
Well, my thoughts on how gay marriage doesn’t re-define or re-delimit anything about nongay marriage are well known, so I’ll just have fun:
“Teacher says every time a definition changes, somewhere a puppydog dies.”
posted by Bobby on
Krauthammer is usually right, but I think the most radical redefinition of marriage is marriage for love. Marriage was rarely for love, I’m watching Outsourced on TV and one of the attractive Indian characters complains that women in real life want to know about his caste, his family, what his father does for a living, how much money he has, etc.
posted by Jimmy on
Bobby, I am in absolute agreement.
posted by Jorge on
I would agree with the point, but Krauthammer’s position would still remain logical. I think Lymis has a better comparison.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I am in absolute agreement.”
—Well, I’m glad, thanks.
Moving on, I think the biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage are heterosexuals themselves. The popularity of pre-nuptial agreements, the bachelor parties, TV shows like The Bachelor and John & Kate plus 8 and so forth do more to harm the institution than anything a few gays getting married could ever do.
posted by Houndentenor on
Isn’t it amazing how ignorant Americans are of history. The radical redefinition of marriage began about 150 years ago when people began choosing their own partners rather than being forced into a marriage arranged by their parents. (A good deal of literature deals with the tragedy of young people who refuse to go along with these arrangements and attempt to choose their own spouses.) Also, the idea, even more recent, that men and women are equal in the marriage and each have rights and needs is a radical departure from the past and still not universally adopted around the world.
Longer ago, the idea that a man would only have one wife must have appeared radical. Polygamy is still practiced in some parts of the world (and rarely even in some parts of the US). I have yet to find a good explanation of why the Israelites seem to have abandoned the practice of polygamy which seems to have been common in the Hebrew Bible but non-existent by the time they are living under Roman rule.
posted by Steve Lewis on
I haven’t read the Krauthammer article but I do have one comment. If same-sex marriage truly is “the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history”, well…..so what.