Saturday, December 29, 2007
On Marriage and Civilization
Earlier this month, I received an e-mail from someone with some text from Congressman Walberg's campaign website, and some thoughts that I could potentially turn into a post. I started working with it, but found that one item in particular was taking up a lot of space, and deserved a post of its own. Now, I'm finally getting around to writing this post.
On Congressman Walberg's campaign website, he writes:
There's a lot to work with in there and a lot of contradictions. But tonight, I want to focus on just one item:
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.Let's talk about marriage and civilization.
Before going any further, I'll say right now that I know that my position on same-sex marriage is not popular in this state or this country. Michigan adopted an amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage in 2004 by a 59 to 41 percent margin. Only two counties-- Ingham and Washtenaw-- had a majority of voters oppose the amendment. I opposed that amendment, and I support allowing same-sex couples to have the same rights that I enjoy.
But that's not important right now. I believe what I believe, and Congressman Walberg clearly states: "I believe marriage is between one man and one woman." That's a perfectly legitimate position to take, and if he had left it at that, I would have left it alone.
Instead, he said:
I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Many in Washington support redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization.It's that second sentence that's a problem. Walberg gets his facts wrong on both counts.
"Many in Washington support redefining this institution..."
Do some people in Washington support redefining marriage-- or, rather, opening it up to same-sex couples? Yes. A few politicians here and there do. But Walberg's claim in the full text above was that these were the differences between his agenda and the "status quo in Congress." To me, that implies that he thinks a majority of Congress is trying to redefine marriage.
Is anyone in Congress trying to redefine marriage right now? Here are the bills that have been introduced in the 110th Congress that relate to defining marriage, with relevant text:
HR 107 (January 4, 2007)
"To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman."Pretty straightforward.
HR 300 - We the People Act (January 5, 2007)
HR 724 - Marriage Protection Act of 2007 (January 30, 2007)
"To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.In other words, this bill says that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman, cannot be challenged in any court.
H. J. Res. 22 - Constitutional Amendment (February 6, 2007)
Did any of those look like those liberals wanting to redefine marriage? To me, it looks like the only folks interested in defining marriage in Washington are folks like Tim Walberg.
Now, about that other part...
"... redefining this institution that has served as the foundation of civilization."
So, marriage is the foundation of civilization? Here I was, thinking the wheel and fire had something to do with it.
Seriously, though, here's what the American Anthropological Association had to say:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.The experts say that Tim Walberg is wrong. What does make a civilization? Wikipedia says:
Marriage, however, didn't seem to make it in there.
I disagree with Congressman Walberg on same-sex marriage, but I realize that a lot of people disagree with me. But to suggest that Walberg is part of a struggling minority defending traditional marriage or to suggest that marriage is the foundation of civilization is both stupid and wrong.
And besides, is there anyone right now that thinks same-sex marriage is going to be an important issue in 2008? Is this what Walberg is going to try to run on?
Honestly. An extensive quote from Wikipedia? Just to show that marriage isn't part of the definition of "civilization"? Not only is this a weak way to make your point, but it makes me cringe to see a serious citation of Wikipedia in any context. Maybe I'm an academic-minded elitist, but this is seriously wrong. Especially given your usual high level of research skills.
If you really feel this is a point worth making, why not cite something more scholarly? A Google Scholar search on marriage and civilization turns up 126,000 results, many of which look quite applicable to your thesis.
Or, if you must start your research on Wikipedia, do what you did in your quote from the AAA and follow the citations in the wiki article itself to find the original material. For all you know, *I* wrote that wikipedia article!
Heh. Yeah, I was wondering if anyone would call me on that. I admit, by the end of the post, I got a little tired and a little lazy.
Tomorrow, I might post an extension based on more than just Wikipedia.
I'm not sure a law prohibiting the supreme court to rule on questions of equal protection would pass muster. While limiting the power of the courts is a congressional right, the court is also jealous of its power and sometimes sees these attempts as circumventing its own article III powers. Sometimes not though.
As a matter of principal, laws like the marriage act and the gag law are reminiscent of much that is now deemed evil in our history, such as the slavery gag rule and the Jim Crow laws. Come on, America. We can't laugh at Ahmadinejad for saying that there is no homosexuality in Iran when we are afraid of it ourselves.
Over at Michigan Liberal, we have the following.
Two Michigan respresentatives on DCCC targeted list
Tim Walberg and Joe Knollenberg have both made the DCCC's list of targeted Congressional districts for this year's election. The criteria for landing on the list is as follows:
* The demographics of the district benefit the Democratic candidate.
* The Democratic presidential nominee won the district in 2004.
* The Democratic presidential nominee performed reasonably well in the district in 2004, and the 2008 Democratic House candidate is particularly strong.
* The Republican incumbent running for re-election in the district is damaged -- either ethically or in some other manner.
The shifting demographics of Knollenberg's district have left him more vulnerable, while Tim Walberg is outright insane. State Sen. Mark Schauer, Michigan Liberal's Public Servant of the year for 2007, is challenging Walberg, while Knollenberg has attracted a field of challengers including Nancy Skinner, who challenged him last year, and Gary Peters.
I sat through a town meeting with Tim lecturing me on me a most important part of the Constitution was the 10th Amendment, which says The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since some states have chosen to recognize same-sex marraige, now Tim is in favor of amending the constitution? Since over 50% of all heterosexual marraiges end in divorce, is it really possible that gays can do worse? How important is the "institution of marraige" these days?Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008