Six of the nine declared GOP presidential candidates have endorsed a
pledge describing marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one
woman. The pledge was drafted by several pro-family organizations,
including the American Family Association. It was presented to
candidates during the Iowa straw poll August 14th. According to
Conservative News Service, Gary Bauer, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes,
Orrin Hatch, Alan Keyes and Day Quayle have all signed the pledge. CNS
says as of August 27th, George W. Bush, Elizabeth Dole and John McCain
had not signed it. 

[Surge's Note #1:  It's somehow appropriate that the only candidate whose
name they misspelled (and totally [sic], btw) was Quayle's...]

[Surge's Note #2:  How the hell is this "pro-family"?  What does this
have to DO with the family?  Wouldn't something like "both parents should
participate in the lives of their offspring" be "pro-family"????  How is
NOT defining marriage that way ANTI-family??????!]

Pentalarc uttered these words of prophecy:
 
 >[Surge's Note #2:  How the hell is this "pro-family"?  What does this
 >have to DO with the family?  Wouldn't something like "both parents should
 >participate in the lives of their offspring" be "pro-family"????  How is
 >NOT defining marriage that way ANTI-family??????!]
 P#@> It isn't.  As far as the right wing is concerned, anything which
 P#@> disagrees with thier bigotry is "anti-family."  They consider thier
 P#@> intolerance to be "pro-family."  That is why I have always said that
 P#@> there is no such thing as "family values" the way the right wing uses
 P#@> it.  It is simply a euphemism for thier intolerance, bigotry, and
 P#@> hatred. 

        Where the problem comes in is when you have people who truly ARE
        pro-family, who are distressed by the almost casual dissolution of
        families (both "nuclear" and extended), and want to find some way
        to alter that attitude.

        I know you're going to blow up on that one, so let me elaborate:
        I hold that a family's primary purpose is to provide a growing
        environment for children.  This means that two gay men may
        make a better family for a child than a heterosexual couple in
        some instances.  This also means that my child's "family" has
        effectively included his day care providers to date (his current
        one only sees him for about two-three hours a day, since
        he's in full-day school now, so she's comparatively minor).  

        I completely agree with the view of the left that the definition of
        "family" as only being a nuclear "family" is flawed;  however, I
        agree with the right that not all marriages make a family, and
        don't agree with anyone in that two parents do not a family make.

        I would love to see someone proposing "family values" that truly
        concentrated on the same focus that any family should be focusing
        on - children.

        The legal and social benefits surrounding marriage were designed to
        provide such an environment for children.  Now that the focus is
        off of them, we concentrate only on the adult partners, and not
        on what they do (or don't do) for children.

        I won't say that we've become more nosy into a family's private life
        than is necessary;  I will definitely say that we're concentrating
        too much on the wrong things in that life.

Frank uttered these words of prophecy:

 SS>  How the hell is this "pro-family"?  What does this have to DO with
 SS> the family?  Wouldn't something like "both parents should participate
 SS> in the lives of their offspring" be "pro-family"????  How is NOT
 SS> defining marriage that way ANTI-family??????!]

        It's worth reiterating the original "pro-family" stance.

        "Six of the nine declared GOP presidential candidates have endorsed a
        pledge describing marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one
        woman."

        While Frank sees the positive of this (which says something good
        about him, actually), it is my experience that the need to define
        MARRIAGE, as opposed to families, has its basis in excluding
        certain benefits for homosexual couples, by restricting the
        definition to one man and one woman.  I'll explain why I feel that
        a restrictive view on marriage is not the only way to be pro-family
        shortly...

 FR#@> It's admirable, albeit far too exceptional, that a divorced or
 FR#@> separated spouse participates in the upbringing of his/her offspring. 

        Absolutely agreed - but I don't think that was the prime
        emphasis of this decree.

 FR#@> However, it's arguably of equal or greater importance to establish the
 FR#@> social relationships between a husband and wife as part of that
 FR#@> process.  Children learn by example. 

        You're absolutely right that the social interactions of parents
        influence children.  More abusive parents come from abusive
        households, for a drastic example.  As I remarked above, it speaks
        well of you that you don't have the innate suspicion about their
        stated goals - heck, I could almost call you idealistic.  =)

        As I've been saying quite a bit this week, I buy wholesale into
        Heinlein's idea of the purpose of marriage - or rather, a family.
        The societal purpose of a family is only one thing - to raise
        children.  Period.  This is echoed in the natural world, and even
        in older societies where the family was not just the "nuclear" sort.

        This, IMHO, led to the institution of marriage as a social and
        legal reinforcement of the need to provide care for children.  

        I am deliberately ignoring arranged marriages for political and
        economic reasons;  I group them into the category of modern
        "marriage", as opposed to "family".

        You see, I do NOT find that marriage and family are synonymous.
        Couples without children, for example, do not fit the societal
        need for marriage.  While there may be personal reasons to desire
        such a legal and social manuever - whether it be a marriage of
        royalty for political reasons, "marrying up" socially or
        economically, or simply to formalize a romantic relationship -
        these are realistically more like partnerships than a "family".

        Of course, there are overlaps.  Historically, most arranged
        marriages produced children (in fact, many HAD to, as Henry VIII
        demonstrated), and today most children are born from marriages
        born out of romance.  Yet I feel that the blurring of the line
        between the purposes of marriage and the purposes (and definition)
        of a family hinder, rather than help, the societal problems at hand.

        Consider - is a full-time nanny part of a "family"?  I would
        certainly say so - perhaps even more so than the married partners
        that brought about the children.  The two day care providers that
        my son has been with have definitely been part of my son's
        "family" - more so than his mother.

        So this is why I feel that defining who can and cannot "marry" -
        and the conditions thereof - are NOT synonymous with family values,
        and may at times even be at odds with families.  Attempting to
        reinstate the idea of a "nuclear family" - which is really an
        attempt to codify marriages - will not necessarily have a positive
        effect on families.

        Why are groups who have historically been denied marriage trying
        to achieve that ability?  Because of the benefits, both social and
        economic, that were originally intended for /families/, not just
        partners.  By focussing on the adult participants in the family,
        many family values groups are missing the entire point of the
        family - raising children.

        As soon as one acknowledges the non-synonymous nature of marriage
        and family, the disparity becomes clear.  Does it require a
        partnership of one man and one woman to care for a child?  Are two
        people enough when both of them have to work?  Why is an extended
        family that includes a non-sexually involved person (be they relative
        or nanny) acceptable, but not a pluralistic one?

        As I'm sure you know, Frank, raising children is a time-consuming
        business indeed.  By tying the idea of family to marriage - then
        limiting it to only the "nuclear" ideal, one not only excludes
        the very real and important members of a family that exist outside
        the bonds of marriage, but those potential families that are
        denied the even the legalistic aspects of marriage.

        And before anyone says it - adoptive families are families too.

Covenant Marriages

Pentalarc uttered these words of prophecy:

 >        How do you figure that?  I find that I agree with RAH in that
 >        marriage is, socially speaking, a contract with one major
 >        goal:  the care of children.  Theoretically, a marriage should
 >        provide an environment for children to be raised in.
 P#@> And I, the ultimate cynic is the only one here who believes in love? 
 P#@> How ironic. . .

        Nope.  I find it absolutely necessary for my existence to believe
        in love.

        As I pointed out in another message area, I draw a distinction
        between marriage and families.  As far as human society (not
        just any cultural group), the function of a family - which many
        attempt to codify as just a "marriage", hence my usage above -
        is to provide for the rearing of children.  By making the
        distinction between marriage and family, you not only make marriage
        a contract among adults, for those two adults - just an expression
        of their love and affection for each other [1], but you also
        redefine "family" as a functional unit, rather than as a specific
        number, ratio, or gender of people.

        For example, the grouping in "My Two Dads" (if you remember that
        sitcom) would be a functional family, as would a polygamy, an
        extended (related) family, or a traditional nuclear family.

        That is, if they successfully created an environment to raise a
        child.  =)  By making the raising of a child the functional
        definition of a family you eventually raise equality among
        family units.

        [1] Contract marriages are rather passe in the West, yes?

 P#@> As far as how it is unconstitutional.  1) The waiting period is
 P#@> identical to the waiting period the Catholic Church requires.

        So what?  I remember that socialists marched alongside Catholics
        and Jehovah's Witnesses in protest of the Gulf War.  That doesn't
        imply anything about any of those groups agreeing on any other
        issue - or implying future co-operation.   Again, this is ad
        hominem circumstantial - you're attacking the argument because
        of who endorses it, not on the merits of the argument itself.

        You've expressed this logical fallacy a number of times lately;
        please stop.  It's getting tiresome to keep typing "ad hominem
        circumstantial".

 P#@> 2) The counselling required can be fulfilled by a religious councilor,
 P#@> such as those the Catholic Church now requires.  In fact, the same
 P#@> counseling can be used for both requirements.

        I don't know if the counselors have any required training - or
        what training the RCC (or any other church) requires of their
        priests, deacons, or other functionaries.

        Personally, I would feel more comfortable talking to a secular
        counselor about personal problems - so when I need a counselor,
        I find one.  That said, I know many people who would much rather
        talk to their spiritual instructor (they aren't all RCC).  As long
        as the training is equal, I do not see a problem with that.

 P#@> 4) The entire idea is a religious idea, thus
 P#@> they are endorsing religion.

        "Thou shalt not murder" is also a religious idea.  Are you proposing
        that first degree murder should be struck down under the first
        amendment, because "it is a religious idea"?  Should we not support
        charities, because Yeshua suggested helping the poor?

        Again, ad hominem circumstantial.  Just because a religion suggests
        or endorses an idea does not make the idea itself religious.  

 P#@> 5) It is not the job of the government
 P#@> (or anyone else) to try to prevent divorce or to extend marriage, and
 P#@> certainly not to force people to stay in bad and/or abusive marriages. 

        The latter I'll emphatically agree with, having been in a bad
        marriage myself.  However, I should ALSO add that if I had more
        of a mandatory waiting time, it's highly unlikely I would have
        gotten into the marriage in the first place.

        The idea of /any/ waiting period is to allow the participants time
        to consider (and reconsider) the idea.  Or to put it in an analogy,
        it's a better idea to just not try running your car into a tree
        than to crash it and try to fix it later - no matter how easy it
        is to fix.

        As far as the role of society (or government), it is in the interest
        of society to ensure that there is a stable environment for children.
        On top of the legal and court costs (and time) incurred by society
        to deal with the issue, you've also got the emotional trauma to
        children.  Again, it is better from a societal standpoint to just
        avoid the whole mess in the first place, since variable-term
        marriages are not available (though I can easily see how one
        could force it to happen through a combination of prenups and
        written contracts).

 >        Caveat Emptor.  It is common sense that people are more apt to
 >        avoid any difficulty than resolve it - if they have the opportunity
 >        to avoid it.  While there are definitely situations that warrant
 >        the dissolution of a marriage, I have to agree [1] that there are
 >        far too many people who simply give up easily, and marriage simply
 >        becomes "boy/girlfriend plus".
 P#@> I disagree, that is all a marriage should be.

        Then just /be/ a boy/girlfriend plus.  Whether we like it or not,
        we are currently stuck with the idea of families being tied in
        with marriages (and since many marriages result in proto-families,
        I don't see it changing anytime soon)[2].  If it makes you feel
        better, create a legal binding contract between yourselves.  Case
        law for that is much clearer - and you could even give the
        variable-term marriage concept a go.

        [2] I do not contradict myself here.  While we may shift our
        focus towards /families/, there is still the fact that marriages
        frequently result in families.  Hence the ambiguity.

 >        At any rate, as long as such covenant marriages are not MANDATORY,
 >        then I see no problem with it.  Same as with prenuptial agreements;
 P#@> It should not be encouraged, allowed or available.

        Where do you get off saying they shouldn't be "allowed or available"?
        Once again, you're coming off as "Free choice - as long as it's
        MY idea of free choice."  By not ALLOWING or making AVAILABLE
        choices that you do not agree with, you are being not only as bad
        as those that you condemn, but worse, as you have cloaked it in
        the name of allowing choice.

        That's the same kind of bullshit that condemns those women who
        CHOOSE to stay at home, that ridicules those who CHOOSE a mainstream
        religion. 

        Why do you presume that only those who choose YOUR choice are not
        brainwashed?  While you may not find the idea of a covenant
        marriage appealing (I don't - though maybe if I tinkered with it),
        YOU do not have to get one.

 P#@> should not be encouraged.  (it was, politicians made public speeches
 P#@> saying that covenant marriage was a good thing.  Besides can you
 P#@> *imagine* the social pressure on people to get a covenant marriage? 

        Can you *imagine* the social pressure on people to only marry
        those of their same ethnicity?  Of their same religion?  Of their
        same social class?  HORRORS!

        No choice is made in a vacuum, no matter how much we might like
        them to be.  That's why making a choice is significant.  That's
        why marriage vows are significant - and that's what these people
        (for WHATEVER reason) are trying to return to.

        When the choice to get married means nothing - no consequences for
        good or ill - then the choice itself is pointless, and meaningless.

 P#@> And the people who would force one are the ones who (studies show) are
 P#@> most likely to abuse.

        Citation, please.

 P#@> However, the covenant marriage, is an
 P#@> essentially religious thing.  It even being allowed or available is a
 P#@> violation of the first amendment, and the separation of church and
 P#@> state. 

        While it may be condoned by religions, that does not make it a
        religious statute.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Justice of the
        Peace may perform one of these marriages, yes?