Your initial post was aimed at rejecting the notion that because Christians divorce just as much as anyone else, their criticisms of SSM as weakening traditional marriage ring hollow. You made two points:

1) Past mistakes don’t justify making further mistakes.
2) SSM proponents themselves are not interested in strengthening marriage, so their criticisms of SSM opponents boil down to an ad hominem attack and an attempt to silence debate.

I responded by noting that if Christian opponents of SSM were truly motivated by their desire to preserve traditional marriage (as they define it), they’d campaign against laws they believe weaken it (e.g., no-fault divorce), just as energetically as they campaign against SSM. The reasons they don’t are because 1) opposition to SSM is driven strongly, if not primarily, by long-standing prejudice against gays; 2) it would greatly inconvenience Christians if divorce was harder to obtain, while it personally costs them little to oppose SSM. This demonstrates that the criticisms against Christian SSM opponents are valid; their position is not primarily based on the one they publicly declare.

You countered by explaining that 1) the reason Christians don’t oppose laws making it easier to divorce, like no-fault divorce, is because it would be futile, unlike, say, legalized abortion, where there’s a good chance repeal can happen. You further say that 2) SSM would have a negative impact not just on you personally, but the wedding industry in general. Next, you claimed that 3) committed Christians don’t divorce as much as popularly believed. Finally, you chastised me for 4) not addressing the actual arguments against SSM.

I hope I’ve fairly and adequately covered the conversation so far. Consequently, allow me to explain why I believe your last reply is inadequate.

As to 1), it puzzles me that you justify the lack of a Christian campaign against easy divorce laws by saying, in essence, that it’s not politically expedient. You spent a great deal of space explaining how critical “traditional” marriage is for the raising of children, criticizing the “worldview” which fuels divorce, and justifying the view that “government policy does shape the worldview of the culture.” How, truly, can political expediency override these? Either Christians like yourself lack the courage of your convictions, or the political expediency argument is a red herring. Is not truth, truth? Do you really care if politics and popular opinion are against you? Work to change them, at all levels, including legal!

As to 2), I think you misunderstood my argument. I claimed Christians feel free to oppose SSM because the costs (not all costs are monetary) to them are negligible, unlike the case if stricter divorce laws returned to the books. That WOULD hurt them, so they remain silent. Conceivably, there could be increased social costs if SSM were legal, but that’s unrelated to my claim. On the one hand, I’m speaking of the lack of costly consequences to Christians who oppose SSM. On the other hand, you’re speaking of costs that some Christians might have to bear if SSM became legal as a basis for their opposition. The fact that the two are unrelated is demonstrated by considering the situation in which legal SSM translated into no costs to Christians or anyone. Christians would still oppose SSM, because it remains costless for them to do so.

A perfect illustration of my point is Dick Cheney, who, as you probably know, has a lesbian daughter. If Cheney opposed SSM, it would cost him dearly in the form of family strife and possible enstrangement. If more Christian families were like Cheney’s, their opposition to SSM would be far more muted; some, like Cheney, would probably support SSM.

As to 3), you’ve performed a bit of sleight-of-hand. So now it’s “committed Christians,” as you define them, who constitute the real Christians. We should consider the divorce rates of “committed Christians” when assessing whether Christian opposition to SSM is undermined by their frequency of divorce, you suggest. Malarky! For one, this is an ad hoc categorization of Christians. For another, what’s to stop you, or anyone else, from playing the game even further by defining “committed Christians” as those who’ve never divorced? Voila! The criticism of SSM proponents is completely nullified! They can’t point to high Christian divorce rates because “committed Christians” don’t divorce!

As to 4), your post didn’t actually contain your arguments against SSM. In the interests of a focused conversation, I was responding to your charge that criticism of Christian SSM opponents based on Christian divorce rates constituted a “low blow”. Point me to your case against SSM and I’ll consider responding to it, but that’s a whole different conversation.

Finally, as far as I can tell, you didn’t reject my argument that Christians were motivated by their long-standing prejudice against gays. You merely dismissed the idea that if Christians were motivated by their desire to preserve “traditional” marriage, they’d also work to repeal laws like no-fault divorce. Even if that were true, it doesn’t nullify the claim that prejudice strongly motivates them.

I’m not the center of the universe. You aren’t either. It is completely preposterous for me to think *my personal happiness* or anyone else’s personal happiness is the supreme good. Only by accepting secular individualism could one’s own happiness plausibly be seen as the end of all ends….but I think S.I is a bunch of bunk too.

I don’t even hold marriage as the supreme good….don’t know where you got that from. Marriage *is* a very unique way to mature a person and hence bring about the character I mentioned above. It is a rather intense crucible for the development of selflessness and responsibility because in marriage, one finds out s/he is most definitely *not* the center of the universe. His happiness (in the contemporary sense) is secondary at best…a man (and woman) must live for the other–> spouse and children.

I also hold that heterosexual marriage is the best environment for the raising of a child. Boys and girls need both a mother and father, for both parents bring something to the table that the other cannot offer. This is why it is important on a societal level.

As to your last point about divorce “laying bare our prejudice” against gays, there is a simple reason why you don’t see a whole lot of campaigning for the repeal of NFD laws (while there have been some calls for divorce law reform): it wouldn’t do any good; NFD aren’t going anywhere, no matter how hard anyone campaigns against them. SSM, though, is a current debate, and it is still an open question as to where things will go. The majority of the public still advocates for a traditional view of marriage. Even with abortion, where Roe and Bolton have been the law of the land for 35 years, the prospects of a Roe repeal are (well, *were,* up until November 4, 2008) good. There are also many pro-life laws on the books that reduce the incidence of abortion (those laws might be in danger the next four years, especially if FOCA passes)…not so with NFD.

Moreover, it is not true that SSM would impact others very little. True enough, SSM wouldn’t impact my individual marriage or the marriage of any one individual, but no one is making that argument. The impact such laws does have is that through my tax dollars, I must support relationships that I have good reason not to support. When government changes the definition of marriage, it gives the implicit approval and affirmation of society to those relationships. Plus, for pastors, church leaders, and anyone involved in the wedding industry, it will be awfully hard for them to opt out of actively performing wedding services for such couples. The law will force them to….this has already happened in certain cases in the U.S.

When you say, “The fact is, Christians feel free to oppose SSM and not no-fault divorce because the former impacts them very little while the latter is a freedom they widely – and sometimes frequently – exercise (just look at Newt Gingrich, for example)” you completely disregarded about half of my post. I gave good reason to hold the divorce rate among committed Christians is lower than the populace at large. I gave good reason to hold that the high divorce rate among Christians is *not* because of anything in the religion itself but instead is due to the influence of an alien worldview–secular individualism. I made a point that it is unwise to attack straw men and hold them as representative of Christians and Christianity (Newt Gingrich…is the guy even Christian? I don’t know.). And lastly, you sidestep the arguments against SSM themselves and jump straight to attacking Christians themselves. Motives are one thing–the actual arguments are something different, and more relevant to the debate.

It would be more profitable if you’d deal with the arguments offered against SSM and for the traditional view. Contra Fox, ending your comment with QED would not be appropriate.

By the way, I’m just curious: what do you think are the arguments for the traditional marriage view over SSM? You insinuate hatred and prejudice on my (and other Christians’) part, but I don’t see anywhere in your comment where you actually recite the views of your opponents then critique them. Can you do that for me?

There is something right about your first point: the institutions of marriage and family actually predate any government. Marriage is recognized by governments; it was not created by governments. No matter what government does with marriage, certain particular families will stay intact. There will always be healthy families around.

However, you fail to acknowledge two things: 1) that government policy does shape the worldview of the culture, and 2) if a government makes it easier to divorce, it’s not a stretch to think more divorces will occur. In fact, that is exactly what happened..see the whole National Marriage Project report here:
http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2007.htm

As to 1), there is a society-wide shift toward secular individualism. This shift is present at all levels: education, media, entertainment, government, etc. The National Marriage Project report acknowledges, “Marriage has fallen by the wayside, in part, because it receives less and less social recognition and approval. Any norm of behavior requires for its maintenance the continuing support of the community, including active social pressures to uphold it. When social approval and pressures wither, the norm weakens. Today’s young people have been taught through the schools and in their communities a strong message of tolerance for ‘alternative lifestyles.’ ‘Thou shalt not make moral judgments about other people’s family behavior’ seems to have become a dominant message in our times. The reason for this is completely understandable; children and young people come from ever more diverse family situations which are not of their own doing, and they should be fully accepted and not be penalized. The problem is that this moral message is carried on into adult life, where it is applied not to children and young people but to adults who do have choices about how they shape their lives. In an effort not to judge much less stigmatize any adult life style, we have all too often become virtually silent about the value and importance of marriage. This silence is extremely damaging to the promotion of a pro-marriage culture. ”

The point here is that though there will always be particular families that stay healthy no matter the cultural milieau, the stability at a macro-level will continue to erode as long as the culture itself has all these eroding elements in it. Government laws are one part of this, though not the whole–government policy communicates a ton about what people should and should not value. It has nothing to do, really, with the “Christian view of marriage.” It’s just that marriage and family are society-level institutions, so duh, they require the support of society to stay strong. When a society, at multiple levels, fails to uphold the institution, it weakens…it’s the nature of the beast, and one doesn’t need to be a Christian to see this.

As to 2),
The more divorces occur, the more children are harmed. Marriage, after all, is not about the happiness of adults (more on that in a bit)–it is about creating a stable environment for the raising of the next generation. That is why the state has an interest in marriage in the first place–the common good of future generations.

As Patrick Lee (Public Discourse contributor) notes, “The state has an essential interest in the health of marriage. Generally speaking, children will receive the best and most loving care if they are raised by their biological parents, who have formed a community aimed at providing the most suitable environment for any children they may help bring into being. Almost always, children can count on their mothers to care for them when they are young; the institution of marriage is dedicated to ensuring, as much as possible, that fathers also will fulfill their responsibilities to the children they help procreate, and to the mothers of their children. Furthermore, where the institution of marriage is strong, people’s sexual passions and energies—frequently difficult to control, often leading to self-centeredness and exploitation—are channeled toward intelligible goods, namely, marriage and family.”

The National Marriage Project report notes recent trends, “There can be no doubt that the institution of marriage has continued to weaken in recent years. Whereas marriage was once the dominant and single acceptable form of living arrangement for couples and children, it is no longer. Today, there is more ‘family diversity:’ Fewer adults are married, more are divorced or remaining single, and more are living together outside of marriage or living alone. Today, more children are born out-of-wedlock (now almost four out of ten), and more are living in stepfamilies, with cohabiting but unmarried adults, or with a single parent. ****This means that more children each year are not living in families that include their own married, biological parents, which by all available empirical evidence is the gold standard for insuring optimal outcomes in a child’s development.****” (emphasis mine)

Also, you misstate things a bit when you say, “Free societies are not built on restrictive rules and regulations concerning with whom we may or may not associate; that is the province of repressive societies.” People are free to associate, live with, and sleep with whomever they wish, whether or not no-fault divorce laws are in effect….it’s just that without no-fault divorce laws, the government isn’t going to affirm your choice. There are all sorts of laws that make dissolving *any* government contract difficult, Robert. That doesn’t mean we are a “repressive” society. In fact, today, a marriage contract is perhaps one of the easiest contracts to dissolve (due to lack of means for one party to contest a divorce).

I am not claiming that no fault divorce laws were the only (or even main) culprit of today’s woeful state of marriage. Just by reading the Wiki page on no fault divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce#United_States_History) I can tell that the erosion started long before that (otherwise couples wouldn’tve perjured themselves in court in order to get around the law at such great numbers). NFD seems to have been a perhaps ill conceived solution to a very sticky problem–a large increase in perjury in order to obtain a divorce. All I’m saying is that NFD laws inched us down the road to where we are now.