« Fox vs. France | Main | So True »
July 08, 2005
The New Marriage
You know, a lot's being made of Rick Santorum's new book, particularly the many parts where the good senator's pen slipped and wrote something honest. Most of those parts have to do with the great evils of feminism, of female career advancement, of two wage families, of modern life. But -- and deep breath here -- that's okay. Dobson and Robertson and Falwell and Bauer like to pin the tail on the homo when fulminating against marriage's enemies. But that's silly. Homosexuals don't threaten today's marriage, they simply codify the defeat of yesterday's.
When Santorum slips and blames emancipated wives, he's actually being the most honest of the bunch. The fundamentalist conception of marriage as a duty demanded by God made perfect sense when it was an obligation imposed by society. Back then, partners were chosen for you, reproduction was required (the upper class would divorce the infertile, the lower class often only married the already-pregnant), and women were locked into the union, lacking both property rights and job opportunities. By allowing childless unions, marriages for love, and female equality, we destroyed traditional marriages. Indeed, it's only once we had watered marriage down to a mere social codification of love that gays and lesbians could even think the institution applicable to them, much less attractive.
Dobson and friends are fighting against a symptom, at least Santorum is going after the root. And that's a much better debate to have. Because what they hate isn't homosexual equality, but the equality that's transformed marriage, the equality that includes women, prizes individual choice, and places limits on sexual determinism. They hate that marriage is now controlled by individuals rather than God, or as He was colloquially known, the Church. Marriage has been taken out of their hands and put into ours, control over it rests with both genders, its purpose and conventions are revised with each union. That's what scares them and, though they think it politically inadvisable, it's what they really want to talk about. We should encourage them.
July 8, 2005 in Life | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8342318e453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The New Marriage:
» Ezra on The New Marriage from Life and Deatherage
A lot of what Ezra Klein writes is too ponderous for me, a truly frightening thought considering he's like 7 years old. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 8, 2005 10:17:10 PM
» Traditional Marriage from CommonSenseDesk
Ezra has figured out why Santorum, Dobson, etal are so upset by the challenges to traditional marriage. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 9, 2005 7:16:10 AM
Comments
I happen to think that misogynous convictions are also at the root of most, if not all of the repression codified and practiced by most clergy in the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Katherine | Jul 8, 2005 6:01:03 PM
They hate that marriage is now controlled by individuals rather than God, or as He was colloquially known, the Church.
Good line.
Posted by: TJ | Jul 8, 2005 6:45:45 PM
I can understand the version of family 'values' spoken by males - they just want the control they think they are owed for historical or biblical reasons.
What blanks my mind is the females that buy into the male-dominance - often with great fervor. It was said that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated by rural and suburban women, but that was pretty far back in time now.
Any theories on this?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 8, 2005 7:04:33 PM
This actually explains the hysterical "defending marriage" argument of the right, as well, when talking about gay marriage. Right now, the last asymmetry remaining to marriage as a legal institution is that it has to be a man and a woman. The two have (theoretically) equal rights, equal responsibilities, etc. But there is still an asymmetry. If a man marries a man, who decides who rules the household? It undermines the last vestige of patriarchal authority to allow men to marry men and women to marry women.
Posted by: Misplaced Patriot | Jul 8, 2005 8:32:38 PM
What blanks my mind is the females that buy into the male-dominance - often with great fervor. It was said that the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated by rural and suburban women, but that was pretty far back in time now.
Too often, women like Andrea Yates buy into it ... and we see what happened there ...
Posted by: Qusan | Jul 8, 2005 9:02:23 PM
Excellent post, and exactly right. The wider an audience we can find for these truths the better for the Democratic Party. I'm a lifelong Christian, but there's no doubt that for fundamentalist Christians, these ideas of gender roles exist under the surface, rooted all the way back to Adam and Eve.
Again, the more bluntly we can get these people to admit to beliefs like marriage doesn't exist to bring together individuals who love each other, the better. This finally began to be a talking point last summer during the marriage amendment brouhaha, leading to the superlative irony of the muliti-divorced and childless Rush Limbaugh making the case that marriage is for procreation and thus excludes homosexuals.
Posted by: the homesteader | Jul 9, 2005 1:06:48 AM
This summer, I've been reading Page Smith's American History series and one of the interesting parts from volume one is that, in Colonial America if a newly married couple had a baby less than nine months after their marriage, all they had to do was make a public apology.
In one particular church this was so common (>50% of the marriages) that they had the apologies printed up in bulk by a local printer and the couples just needed to affix their signature.
Posted by: pansauce | Jul 9, 2005 7:21:52 AM
Har-de-Har-Har.
Ezra posts this wild-eyed view and all of the minions nod their heads and harrumph about the "fundamentalists". Well, here's the news, Sunshine. Contrary to what the hard left has attempted to propagandize, the "fundamentals" are few and far between and yet, it's a huge majority that rejects homosexual marriage.
So, here is the conclusion. Either the black-and-white view promoted by the loony left propaganda manchine is wrong or more than half of the country is "fundamentalist". Do you *REALLY* think that is true?
The fact is, you don't have to be a "fundamentalist" to reject homosexual marriage. Your view of the "enemy" is a cartoon. You don't even understand those who reject this abberation.
"The elephant is like a tree."
Posted by: Robert Zimmerman | Jul 9, 2005 8:08:16 AM
Hi Ezra,
Still miss you at Pandagon.
I'm trackbacking on this and expanding further on your comments because I want to bring the importance of homeschooling in this observation.
You see, Santorum's wife is a stay-at-home mom. Technically, I am a stay-at-home mom. What brings us together? We homeschool.
When repugs talk about us Dems not having any family values we know it's a crock of shit. But more often than not it is a repug who is fighting for education freedom than a democrat. Sure, they are the ones who came up with the piece of shit legislation called the NCLB; but they knew what they were doing. Non-repugs are most likely to have fallen for that bait because the fundies are most likely to encourage private education in either parochial schools or through homeschooling.
Ironically, as much as he bemoans not being held as a prince of God by society (which would make it then possible for him to impose his will on his chosen vessel withouht fear of retribution from the laws of man), he is one the biggest advocates of freedom of choice when it comes to education. Repeat after me : freedom of choice.
Yes, these are the inconsistencies that I hope my fellow Dems may start to understand when dealing with fundies like Santorum. Because they are all for freedom of choice when it comes to birthing, raising and educating their kids. That's why they have birthing centers and encourage home-births. That's why they are suspect of mandatory immunization. That's why they homeschool. That's why this is the kind of guy who would pursue much more libertarian rules regarding family issues because, that way, the government can't tell him how to rule in his own home.
So the Santorums are way more progressive than people who think that schooling, and especially public schooling, is the best thing to ever happen to democracy.
If Dems started to engage these people by saying "I think it is important to protect all freedom of choice, including the freedom to make the best decisions for our families"; right there you'd be hitting more than two birds with one stone. Attacking them for not sending their kids to school, vaccinating or deciding that they treat their dead fetus as a baby --a baby they all bonded with and named as one of their own-- is basically reinforcing their view that they're outsiders and crusaders that need to impose their own version of freedom --that is their own and no one else's.
Democrats really need to start reading Mario Cuomo. On a daily basis.
Posted by: liza sabater | Jul 9, 2005 11:43:37 AM
Marriage is not the same as before 20 years for an instance.Now women want to work and not to stay at home to watch for the kids.And this is something normal for me.
Posted by: Cara Fletcher | Jul 21, 2007 11:37:19 AM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 17, 2007 3:22:29 AM



