I cannot refute your unstated evidence of historical world-wide patterns of civil institutions of marriage NOT being about the generation of the next generation. In my limited studies outside the West of advanced cultures that sustained healthy societies, I did not find any evidence of state or civic institutions of marriage designed to promote the sexual liberties of adults.

While I still am positioned against the amendment, I want to give as careful consideration as possible to the arguments in favor of the amendment. Ultimately, I will vote in a way which is most consistent with my understanding of the core values expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the United States constitution, and the North Carolina constitution.

I did some time researching the institution of marriage worldwide. Certainly, your argument, based on the modern Western Judeo-Christian view of marriage is sensible within that context. I don’t see in the history of marriage worldwide, that marriage has been, or is necessarily child-focused. It appears to me that throughout history, it was adult-focused, and dealt mostly with property rights. The reality is that family structures have been diverse throughout the history of the world, and that children being born out of wedlock is common, and not simply a modern phenomena.

You made the statement: “Same sex marriage repurposes marriage from a child-focused institution to an institution focused on validating and facilitating the expressive desires of adults.” My investigation into the history of marriage worldwide tells me that marriage has in general been an institution focused on validating and facilitating the expressive desires of adults. It may be that the Judeo-Christian version of marriage has more of a child-rearing focus (it certainly is family/child-focused in the Roman Catholic tradition), but why should that be the sole required type of marriage in a secular country founded to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all?

In my view, the Judeo-Christian view of marriage has been and is the most common conception of marriage in the United States. This is not surprising, given that the majority of Americans identify as Christians. But why should this religious view of marriage be the exclusive form of civil marriage? It’s my opinion that this is an improper conflation for a secular country to espouse. Why should the most populous religious group get to define a civil institution in a secular country, especially one like ours, which proclaims all men to be created equal? The United States is not a Christian nation, despite the largely Judeo-Christian guiding principles which were used during its establishment (I’ll simply reference the Barbary Treaties of the 1780s-1810s as evidence of the secular nature of the U.S.).

If the civil institution of marriage definition is broader in scope than a Judeo-Christian definition of marriage, it doesn’t change the nature of marriage in a Christian context, does it? Are not Christian groups still free to define marriage as they see fit, and engage in their marriage covenant ceremonies before God in a manner consistent with their beliefs?

You argue that this restrictive constitutional amendment is necessary basically to preserve the status quo, that is, to maintain the Judeo-Christian view of marriage as the exclusive form of civil marriage. Suppose we lived in a very different country – one that traditionally defined marriage as polygamous, and that to be officially married in the eyes of the government, you must have at least 2 wives. Suppose that Christians are less than 10 percent of the country’s population, but are petitioning for recognition of monogamous heterosexual relationships as marriages. Would it be acceptable to you that the majority of citizens of that country would have the opportunity to vote to define and affirm only polygamous relationships as official marriages?

Part of your marriage argument relies on comparing the advantages of traditional two parent families to the disadvantages/consequences of single-parent families. Same-sex marriages do not produce single-parent families….they do product single-gender parenting, but there are two parents. I have not taken the time to investigate studies of consequences to children with homosexual parents. However, I’m not convinced it is fair to superimpose the social and economic consequences of single-parent childrearing onto homosexual couple parenting.

You’ve presented as part of your argument correlations (one example is cultural views of marriage and fertility rates, and another is embedded in your statement “The increase of social pathologies in the West corresponds with the increase in national debts and other fiscal irresponsibility”), but it seems to me that you are arguing from positions of causation. Correlation is not causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc). This is important to remember. Your treatment of these issues is insufficient to argue from positions of causation.

Certainly you are correct to point out that there are serious policy and economic consequences connected to social behaviors. It may very well be that the decline in the percent of traditional family units has increased government intrusion. I do agree with Kevin’s observation here – you seem against government intrusion into family matters, but adoption of this amendment adds to government intrusion. Are you saying government intrusion is ok, so long as it has been publicly voted on? I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were not part of the majority ethnicity or religious group.

Thank you again for the discussion. I am really trying to approach this vote with serious deliberation, but I find most people unwilling to discuss the amendment in any depth.

Regardless, and to your libertarian sympathies (which I strongly share), it’s a fiction to compartmentalize social and economic morality. The increase of social pathologies in the West corresponds with the increase in national debts and other fiscal irresponsibility. Furthermore and related, failing families and communities create a vacuum for government intervention and involvement. The collapse of the institution of family is, in my opinion, the single greatest causal factor in the increase of government intrusion in the West in the past 50 years …

Do you have an actual reference for point 1. Perhaps the reference that the book quotes?

Thanks,

Psi