While researching the various conservative groups across the country who are taking an anti gay marriage stance, I noticed that they utilize the same resource for their information. The conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, can be largely credited for such research that argues the social costs of gay marriage, threats to religious liberties, and threats of homosexuality being taught in schools, that groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and Protect Marriage Washington have been utilizing in their campaigns.
However, while looking into The Heritage Foundation's research on the social costs of gay marriage, I came to a startling revelation. They may have made such a grave error in their interpretation of the research that groups like the National Organization for Marriage may now actually be contributing to the decline of traditional marriage.
How so? Well the research that the Heritage Foundation utilizes to argue the social costs of marriage is mostly derived form studies in the Netherlands. Back in the 1980s, the Netherlands saw a sharp increase in the number of children born out of wedlock and a sharp decline in the number of marriages. This was largely due to an upsurge in alternative forms of cohabitation that became available to heterosexual couples. The Dutch academics that the Heritage Foundation cite make the argument that the gay movement's political campaign, which aimed to separate child procreation/rearing from the institution of marriage, was likely a main contributor to this trend that followed throughout Europe.
However, this ignored two vital liberalizations. The introduction of no fault divorce and the influx of women leaving home to work.
So this leaves two possibilities open...
1. The introduction of no fault divorce and the influx of women leaving work in the 60s and 70s has over time lead to the degradation of traditional marriage to the point that attitudes now no longer consider procreation as a fundamental element of marriage and that has lead to attitudes favorable to allowing gay marriage.
2. The political campaigns in the 80s for gay marriage have lead to attitudes that procreation is not a fundamental element to marriage, which in turn has lead to the degradation of traditional marriage.
The former seems more likely to me, but conservatives are leaning more towards blaming gay marriage for the decline of traditional marriage. In addition to that, rather than focus on how no fault divorce and women leaving home to work is affecting heterosexual marriages, groups like the National Organization for marriage have turned the national focus to how the "homosexual agenda" is out to undermine religious liberties and indoctrinate and recruit children in schools. By taking this rather prejudiced route, NOM may have effectively cemented the decline of traditional marriage by distracting people from the true factors that are leading to its decline. As a result, even if NOM were to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to outright ban same sex marriage, the institution will be utterly destroyed because the prevailing attitudes that allowed the question to even be raised will still continue to propagate each generation and alternative forms of cohabitation will become more likely as heterosexuals turn with their LGBT counterparts to alternative choices such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Constitutional Amendment would eventually be overturned.
Shockingly enough, probably in large part because of the work of groups like NOM, a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority (54%) now support alternative civilly recognized forms of cohabitation (civil unions and domestic partnerships), a huge shift within the conservative base. The irony is that these alternative choices, as we saw in the Netherland study, were largely the reason so many children were born out of wedlock and marriages were on the decline. The efforts of groups like NOM are increasing support for civil unions and domestic partnerships, even though such alternative choices to marriage are the very reason marriage is declining in Europe.
Finally, considering that Massachusetts, the state which first allowed gays to marry, now carries the country's lowest rate of divorce, you really have to wonder how much of an effect gay marriage really has, if any.
Groups like NOM could have piled the millions upon millions they collected into fighting for covenant marriages, restricting the terms of divorce, and providing incentives for women to stay at home rather than work, which would have probably had an enormous impact on protecting the institution of traditional marriage, and maybe even decreasing the attitudes in favor of same sex marriage. However, due to what I percieve to be their major miscalculation, they have dumped that money down the drain on a cause which they are demographically losing with each generation, largely because they did not focus on the true causes behind the decline of traditional marriage, and they have probably ensured traditional marriage's inevitable demise as a result.
What are the Consequences of Redefining Marriage?
USATODAY.com - Civil unions gain support
Marriage, family stronger in states supporting marriage equality
Thoughts?
However, while looking into The Heritage Foundation's research on the social costs of gay marriage, I came to a startling revelation. They may have made such a grave error in their interpretation of the research that groups like the National Organization for Marriage may now actually be contributing to the decline of traditional marriage.
How so? Well the research that the Heritage Foundation utilizes to argue the social costs of marriage is mostly derived form studies in the Netherlands. Back in the 1980s, the Netherlands saw a sharp increase in the number of children born out of wedlock and a sharp decline in the number of marriages. This was largely due to an upsurge in alternative forms of cohabitation that became available to heterosexual couples. The Dutch academics that the Heritage Foundation cite make the argument that the gay movement's political campaign, which aimed to separate child procreation/rearing from the institution of marriage, was likely a main contributor to this trend that followed throughout Europe.
However, this ignored two vital liberalizations. The introduction of no fault divorce and the influx of women leaving home to work.
So this leaves two possibilities open...
1. The introduction of no fault divorce and the influx of women leaving work in the 60s and 70s has over time lead to the degradation of traditional marriage to the point that attitudes now no longer consider procreation as a fundamental element of marriage and that has lead to attitudes favorable to allowing gay marriage.
2. The political campaigns in the 80s for gay marriage have lead to attitudes that procreation is not a fundamental element to marriage, which in turn has lead to the degradation of traditional marriage.
The former seems more likely to me, but conservatives are leaning more towards blaming gay marriage for the decline of traditional marriage. In addition to that, rather than focus on how no fault divorce and women leaving home to work is affecting heterosexual marriages, groups like the National Organization for marriage have turned the national focus to how the "homosexual agenda" is out to undermine religious liberties and indoctrinate and recruit children in schools. By taking this rather prejudiced route, NOM may have effectively cemented the decline of traditional marriage by distracting people from the true factors that are leading to its decline. As a result, even if NOM were to get a Constitutional Amendment passed to outright ban same sex marriage, the institution will be utterly destroyed because the prevailing attitudes that allowed the question to even be raised will still continue to propagate each generation and alternative forms of cohabitation will become more likely as heterosexuals turn with their LGBT counterparts to alternative choices such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. The Constitutional Amendment would eventually be overturned.
Shockingly enough, probably in large part because of the work of groups like NOM, a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority (54%) now support alternative civilly recognized forms of cohabitation (civil unions and domestic partnerships), a huge shift within the conservative base. The irony is that these alternative choices, as we saw in the Netherland study, were largely the reason so many children were born out of wedlock and marriages were on the decline. The efforts of groups like NOM are increasing support for civil unions and domestic partnerships, even though such alternative choices to marriage are the very reason marriage is declining in Europe.
Finally, considering that Massachusetts, the state which first allowed gays to marry, now carries the country's lowest rate of divorce, you really have to wonder how much of an effect gay marriage really has, if any.
Groups like NOM could have piled the millions upon millions they collected into fighting for covenant marriages, restricting the terms of divorce, and providing incentives for women to stay at home rather than work, which would have probably had an enormous impact on protecting the institution of traditional marriage, and maybe even decreasing the attitudes in favor of same sex marriage. However, due to what I percieve to be their major miscalculation, they have dumped that money down the drain on a cause which they are demographically losing with each generation, largely because they did not focus on the true causes behind the decline of traditional marriage, and they have probably ensured traditional marriage's inevitable demise as a result.
What are the Consequences of Redefining Marriage?
USATODAY.com - Civil unions gain support
Marriage, family stronger in states supporting marriage equality
Thoughts?
Last edited:
