Rick Santorum is at it again, fighting gay marriage with arguments that don't hold up to scrutiny. And these days Republicans are keeping their distance.
Santorum writes:
Social science provides overwhelming evidence of the benefits of marriage to children and society. In what other area of public policy would government be neutral when the benefits are so overwhelming? We know work and marriage are antidotes to poverty... Research tells us that low-income children without a father at home are five times more likely to remain poor.
But his solution to this problem is a ban on gay marriage. What's the connection? It isn't gay couples who are raising single-parent children, who are more likely to encounter problems with school and the law. Much of the argument for gay-marriage bans is this sort of bait-and-switch: point to a real problem, then come up with an irrelevant solution that scapegoats a small group.
Fortunately, Republicans are mostly ignoring Santorum and his allies these days. They see the long-term damage that the anti-gay crusade is doing them. Back in 2004 they thought that social issues, especially gay marriage bans, would help them win the presidential election. It wasn't really true even then: it turns out that George W. Bush's share of the vote rose just slightly less in the marriage-ban states than in the other states: up 2.6 percent in the states with marriage bans on the ballot, up 2.9 percent in the other states.
This year, even though President Obama and the Democratic platform have endorsed marriage equality, Mitt Romney and the Republicans are staying away from the issue. With good reason. The Washington Post reported earlier this month:
In February, a poll by the [Des Moines Register] newspaper found that 56 percent of Iowans were opposed to legislative efforts to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. That is consistent with other swing states: Voters back gay marriage by 21 points in Florida, 15 points in Ohio and nine in Virginia, new Washington Post polls found.
Read that again: "Voters back gay marriage by 21 points in Florida, 15 points in Ohio and nine in Virginia."
A September Post poll in the crucial state of Ohio found that by 61 to 30 percent, registered voters said they trusted Obama "to do a better job dealing with social issues such as abortion and gay marriage."
A late October poll found that in swing-state Virginia
Obama also enjoys a wide lead among likely voters (56 percent to 35 percent) on the question of social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage.
Nationally, a Post poll analysis found that 63 percent of the tiny number of genuine swing voters support gay marriage.
I argue in my new ebook, The Libertarian Vote: Swing Voters, Tea Parties, and the Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal Center that 15 to 20 percent of the voters hold broadly libertarian views, conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. They usually vote Republican, if the Republicans emphasize fiscal issues and soft-pedal social conservatism. Republicans are starting to notice that. And they know that, even as support for marriage equality is just flirting with 50 percent, two-thirds of young voters support it. Campaigning against gay marriage is a good way to make the Democratic advantage among young people permanent.
That sound you don't hear, the missing Republican ads denouncing Obama for his support of gay marriage? That's the sound of social change. It looks like Rick Santorum is being left behind.
You're a genius, Ricky. A genius.
* Specifically, legal next-of-kin-ship. And, it is from that kinship that come "the effects that flow from marriage".
No one has yet made a rational, reasoned case for keeping same-gender couples from being the beneficiaries of those 'effects'.
And, for those frightwingnuterati who bring up the "Why can't I marry my sister or my dawg?" inanitites, here's why: You and your sister already have legal kinship established and thus have no need of marriage. And, your dog is not human, and non-humans cannot render legal consent to enter into the contract we call marriage. (But, thanx 4 playin'.)
You're welcome.
So when have two men ever produced offspring?
Kinship of children to their parents are outside the purview of marriage at it's base, although many states around the world due provide additional benefits to the children of married couples. So, opposing marriage for gay people also screws over the children (and they number in the millions) of those same people.
That is the very modus operandum of the anti-equality squad.
Sadly.
'But his solution to this problem is a ban on gay marriage. What's the connection?'
I advise you not to hold your breath waitinf for Mr. S. to clearly, unequivocally state the "connection" since THERE ISN'T ONE.
Not too surprising, he's never actually had a thought in his head...
Same sex marriage is anti-gender. It belittles motherhood and fatherhood. It deprives children of a gender-integrated home.
Because same sex marriage conflicts with religious liberties. People of faith (Catholic, Christian, Muslim, etc) can be targeted and sued by gender-segregated couples. A Catholic couple in Vermont was sued by two New York women for declining to host their wedding. Now this inn can't hold any wedding receptions for any couples regardless of the gender.
We can love our friends and family members with same sex attraction AND we can still support gender diversity.
Keep marriage pro-gender. Because gender matters to everyone, including those with SSA.
"Same sex marriage is anti-gender" = same sex marriage is against the gender definition that you approved of.
"It belittles motherhood and fatherhood" = because parenthood need to be with both gender to be valid, and single parenthood is no doubt, worthless in your eyes.
"It deprives children of a gender-integrated home" = oh my, gender integrated home? what the heck is that? (if you want to teach children the 'definitive role of gender ; ie women in kitchen man in office) ah i see your point crystal now ..
A gender-integrated home is a gender-diverse home comprised of a man and a woman. No matter how great a dad is he will never be a mother. Promoting natural marriage teaches tolerance for the most foundational diversity we have: gender.
Therefore, we must extend the benefits of marriage to gay people and their children.
End. Of. Story.
The right is using these fake stats and sciences to try and back their claims and yet they don't because all they tell is what happens to kids in STRAIGHT single parent homes. They have yet to do ONE study on the affects on the children who were actually raised by same-sex parents. They won't do it either because the results will be the opposite of what they are hoping for.
All this is are people legislating their religous beliefs and they can't just say "jesus said not to" because of course he didn't and that would be against the law for them to do.
We are tax paying citizens and can not settle for being second class in every other way.
There are plenty of studies which show no negative effects from being raised by same-sex parents. (I'm sure someone will have the link handy.) There was one study that showed negative effects ... but of course that didn't study children who were actually raised by same-sex parents.
The social science holds that single-parent families are more prone to children experiencing hardships in life. Redefining "marriage" is not the solution, but is a facet of the larger problem of marriage not being held in high regard in our society. I mean, marriage of the biological parents lasting a lifetime, not the what it's currently made to be in movies and on the red carpet and in the tabloids. The "exclusive LGBT couple" can't be biological parents on the basis of biological design without violating the sanctity of of the exclusive-to-two relationship. Redefining marriage is a step along the way of removing the stabilizing influence of marriage upon society.
As far as a 1950's moral viewpoint... It was also a time when we rarely heard of: drug babies, multiple homicides, terrorism, divorce, unwed mothers. It was also a time when we didn't have to lock our doors at night, and our kids could play outside after dark without worrying about being kidnapped, raped and killed.
Seems to me we both want that part of society again...
You are correct - women were objects ("chattel") that could be owned and "sold in marriage". In some countries, they still can be. But America is not one of them, thank Zeus.
Faved.