Archives: November 2011

In comments, responding to Christopher, Elizabeth wrote a very concise summary of the heart of her own (anti-Same Sex Marriage) stance, and also the heart of Christopher’s (pro-SSM) stance.

there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who wish to have equal rights to marry someone of the same sex, and there are reasons to hear the concerns of those who believe redefining marriage will weaken even more the social and legal idea that kids, the vast majority of whom are born to heterosexuals, need whenever possible to know and be known by their mothers and fathers, which is most likely to happen with their mother and father are married to each other.

Here’s a curious thing I’ve realized about the gay marriage debate: There’s a big split between the intellectuals and non-intellectuals on the anti-equality side of the debate, but not so much on the pro-equality side.

Both Elizabeth and Christopher are, obviously, far more well-read and articulate when discussing marriage equality than most Americans are. (Practice does that for ya.)

But the core of Christopher’s argument — “equal rights” — is the core of the arguments you can commonly hear from practically anyone who supports same-sex marriage. It’s easy to explain, and it’s an argument that has a lot of salience among Americans (particularly younger Americans).

But as far as I can tell — both from personal encounters and from polls – the same can’t be said about the argument against equality. Most ordinary people who oppose same-sex marriage say they’re against it because of their religion, or because they just don’t think being gay is moral.

Intellectuals who articulate a secular case against marriage equality, such as Elizabeth and David, are making an argument that has very little to do with why ordinary people oppose it.

(Let me emphasize that this is merely an observation. The rightness or wrongness of the secular anti-equality arguments are not determined by how popular they are; an argument can be entirely correct and nonetheless be unpopular.)

Does this matter? Well, I think it has a great deal to do with why the pro-equality side is winning this argument. The core argument against marriage equality isn’t the secular argument skillfully articulated by David and Elizabeth; it’s that God doesn’t want gay people getting married. That’s an argument that has less and less salience with each new generation of Americans.

OTTAWA — British Columbia’s highest court ruled Wednesday that Canada’s 121-year-old criminal law banning polygamy is constitutional.

The ruling stemmed from a failed prosecution in 2009 of two leaders of a breakaway Mormon sect in British Columbia and might have implications for followers of other religions that allow polygamy. In a 335-page decision that followed 42 days of hearings, Robert J. Bauman, the court’s chief justice, found that women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems.

“The law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times,” Justice Bauman wrote. “It seeks to protect against the many harms which are reasonably apprehended to arise out of the practice of polygamy.” more

Dear Prudence,

My husband and I are in our 30s, have been married for more than a decade, and have one child. My husband is smart and successful. He’s fun-loving, outgoing, supportive of my career, incredibly helpful around the house, generous, enjoys taking me shopping, and is generally an all-out nice guy. However, he often bores me intellectually. While I love Fellini, he loves The Transporter movies. I read for pleasure, he watches TV shows or works out. It depresses me. I have discussed this issue with him, and he does try to talk to me about things he thinks will interest me, such as history, but it doesn’t work due to his shallow grasp of most subjects. His mother left when he was in kindergarten and he got a horrible stepmother, so he was wounded emotionally. I find brains and confidence wild turn-ons, but unfortunately I don’t get that with him. My husband does have magnificent prowess in bed and a great sense of humor. I always had boyfriends who were well-read and my dad was a keen intellect, so I love to discuss physics or geopolitics over dinner. But with my husband all I get is mundane talk. I feel trapped. What should I do?

—Confused

Dear Confused,

Every married woman can sympathize with your plight. Your husband overcame a terrible childhood to become an attentive, kind, helpful, loving, successful, funny man. Also, he’s a dynamo in bed. But he knows nothing about neutrinos or the Maastricht Treaty. Of course you want to trade him in! You say because your husband likes The Transporter while you’d rather watch La Dolce Vita, you feel trapped and depressed. But if you think transporting yourself to the dating scene will lead to your own “sweet life,” then you’re not quite the brain you think you are. The job of your spouse is not to provide you a romance-novel version of life. You and your husband connect in so many ways, but he’s not intellectually inclined. So fulfill that part of your life by joining a club or a group devoted to issues that intrigue you. And when you’re having stimulating talks with men at your foreign affairs club, don’t have an affair. I bet had you been married to an egghead for more than a decade, you’d be fantasizing about a guy who’s just a genius in the sack. If you can’t rethink your attitude and come to appreciate what you have, and instead decide to blow up your family to pursue your fantasies, be comforted knowing a man like your husband won’t be single for long.