In a recent editorial, commentator John Jalsevac does a good job of analyzing “Why we are losing the gay marriage debate” and makes a compelling case for “how we can win.”
Jalsevac argues that “consistency is the only hope of victory,” because we cannot hope to be taken seriously in our dialogue about same-sex marriage if we don’t first own up to the sorry condition of heterosexual marriage. He notes that:
… some sixty percent of couples cohabit before marriage; nearly half of all marriages end in divorce; a record number of Americans aren’t bothering to get married in the first place, and those that do get married are getting married ever later; 41 percent of all children are born out of wedlock; 35 percent of children live in single-parent homes; only 61 percent of children under 18 live with their biological parents; and the birth rate has now dipped below the replacement level, as couples are having fewer and fewer, or sometimes no children at all. So much for marriage being “life-long,” “exclusive” and child-oriented!
Jalsevec makes the point that marriage is about more than simply a “temporary contract between two people who are in love.” Jalsevec labels this flawed notion of the marriage — “New Marriage.” He argues that if current heterosexual marital practice is best described, statistically, as “New Marriage,” then there is really no basis on which to argue against same-sex marriage. Heterosexuals cannot practice “New Marriage” and then prohibit this from homosexuals.
He concludes:
And if we are not to be scoffed at when we say that sex is “sacred” and only properly expressed within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman, it will be because we ourselves are living emblems of the joy of living chastely; because we ourselves have rejected promiscuity, pornography, and infidelity; and because our pastors preach and our churches teach that sex is sacred and have refused to compromise with the culture of divorce and promiscuity.
This is an important essay because we cannot win the gay marriage debate by legislation alone. That is to say, if the legalization and normalization of same-sex marriage seems inevitable, it does so in the face of large numbers of states whose citizens have voted to affirm a traditional definition of marriage (see below).
Constitutional amendments to define marriage are an important line of legal defense for traditional marriage. But, the battle is already lost if advocates of traditional marriage cannot cease from, as Jalsevac writes, “accepting or indulging in our favorite portions of the Sexual Revolution, but then complaining bitterly when the revolution leads precisely to where it promised to lead.” Winning the battle must happen in both the court of law and also in our own homes.
++++++++++++++++++
STATES WHICH HAVE AFFIRMED THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
From Baptist Press:
Every state that has voted on the issue of marriage at the ballot has affirmed the traditional definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Following is a list of each state that has voted on the issue. Unless noted, each vote involved a constitutional marriage amendment. Passage of the various proposals has come by an average margin of 67-33 percent.
1998
Alaska, 68-32 percent
Hawaii, 69-31 percent
2000
*California, 61-39 percent
Nevada, 70-30 percent (first of two required votes)
Nebraska, 70-30 percent
2002
Nevada, 67-33 percent (second of two required votes)
2004
Arkansas, 75-25 percent
Georgia, 76-24 percent
Kentucky, 75-25 percent
Louisiana, 78-22 percent
Michigan, 59-41 percent
Mississippi, 86-14 percent
Missouri, 71-29 percent
Montana, 67-33 percent
North Dakota, 73-27 percent
Ohio, 62-38 percent
Oklahoma, 76-24 percent
Oregon, 57-43 percent
Utah, 66-34 percent
2005
Kansas, 70-30 percent
Texas, 76-24 percent
2006
Alabama, 81-19 percent
Colorado, 56-44 percent
Idaho, 63-37 percent
South Carolina, 78-22 percent
South Dakota, 52-48 percent
Tennessee, 81-19 percent
Virginia, 57-43 percent
Wisconsin, 59-41 percent
2008
**Arizona, 56-44 percent
California, 52-48 percent
Florida, 62-38 percent
2009
***Maine, 53-47 percent
2012
North Carolina, 61-39 percent
*California’s 2000 vote was an initiative and not a constitutional amendment.
**Arizona voters defeated a marriage amendment in 2006, only to pass one two years later.
***Maine’s initiative was not a constitutional amendment but a “people’s veto” that overturned a gay “marriage” law.
2 Comments. Leave new
While I understand the Layman is only quoting the Baptist Press in this article, the statistics do not include the fact, that I’m sure the Layman is aware of, that same gender marriage was approved by more than 50% of the voters in Washington, Maryland and Maine in 2012. Additionally, Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional ammendment that would have baned same gender marriage in that state by a similar margin.
If the Layman wishes to engage in a constructive debate over marriage, the least you can do is to report accurate information.
The vast and overwhelming majority of Americans who have voted have chosen to support natural, traditional marriage. That much is clear. The point made about maintaining the integrity of marriage as we believe God intends it to be is valid, although the shortcomings of our current culture in upholding the sanctity of marriage should not be an argument against legislatively protecting the institution, just because society may have its shortcomings doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel on our aspirations to attain to a higher ideal.