Jebus Freaks are off the Reservation and They want Theirs

I see the my esteemed colleague General J.C. Christian, heterosexual patriot, is allready all over this tale involving marriage protection, the scourge of spilt seed, lost eggs and childless couples. It is not enough to keep vigilant in the face of the "gay agenda", but also keep a vigilant eye on consenting adults who enjoy sex for recreation and not procreation, in other words, heathens, that practice deliberate childlessness.

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer

NEW YORK - "Protection of marriage" is now the watchword for many activists fighting to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying. Some conservatives, however, say marriage in America began unraveling long before the latest gay-rights push and are pleading for a fresh, soul-searching look at the institution.

The august American institution has been under a withering assault of late, and a good old fashioned soul searching is necessary, before heathen secular concerns rush in and carry marriage off like like a Viking taking his plunder.

"When you talk about protecting marriage, you need to talk about divorce," said Bryce Christensen, a Southern Utah University professor who writes frequently about family issues.

While Christensen doesn't oppose the campaign to enact state and federal bans on gay marriage, he worries it's distracting from immediate threats to marriage's place in society.

"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."

Mr Christensen is a man with lazer like focus, and has not let the Gay marriage issue keep his eyes off the ball. His three main fears are "cohabitation" "casual divorce" and "deliberate childlessness", each of these paerils is like water or termites undermining the foundation of the Christian institution of Marriage, and if Mr Christensen has to do a whole lot of crotch sniffing while performing bedroom examinations so be it.

Now to be serious for one moment, one has to ask, what he plans to do about the cohabitation and deliberate childlessness. I am sure that he hopes to piggyback some no-divorce clause onto some federal marriage ammendement, but what does he have in mind for those that choose to live together out of wedlock, and those who chose not to have children. In the case of divorce, the modification of the rules of an institution that is entered into mostly as a matter of choice does not bother me (ridiculous as it is) as much as the idea that government has a say in the regulation of interpersonal relationships outside of he perview of Marriage, the Institution™. Mr Christensen is not the only wingnut who sees a need to protect us all from ourselves.

"For the first time in about 50 years we are honestly looking at the state of marriage in America, and what we have allowed to happen to it," he said. "I hope the conservative side will do a little soul-searching and look for ways to rebuild traditional marriage into something stronger."

Carlson decries no-fault divorce, where neither spouse is held responsible for the breakup, but acknowledges that its demise is not imminent. He proposes more modest steps: tax revisions benefiting married couples, a more positive portrayal of marriage in textbooks, policies aiding young college graduates so they could afford to marry sooner.

Lets examine his solutions to the problem that he is willing to discuss, because in all reality these folks are looking at the Handmaid's tale as a blueprint for the kind of moral hegemony they seek to lord over us. Carlson seems to have a 2 step solution: Throw money at it, and improve the propaganda.

Now throwing money at problems usually offers no guarentee of solution. As far as more positivitude in the textbooks, you are also going to have to convince the kids not to believe their lying eyes, as they watch economic and other forces tear theirs or families they know about apart.

Unfortunately these guys are dealing with bandaids and fail to address the causes underlying the problem (cause that's hard, and the answers would probably undermine your world view) and instead conflate the symptoms with he cause, leading to solutions not likely to adress either. I think there is another symptomalogist on the line.

Jordan Lorence, a Phoenix-based lawyer with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, has been active fighting same-sex marriage, but he agrees with those who see marriage facing broader challenges.

"For decades, Christians have been guilty for having a weak defense of marriage," he told the Christian Post earlier this year. "Marriage has become a junior high school dating scene where if I am unhappy I could divorce my husband or wife and move on to someone else."

In a telephone interview, Lorence said Americans face a choice of whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction or as an institution serving the communal good.

"That's the big battle line," he said. "I think people's attitudes are shifting, and they're saying the traditional way makes a lot of sense — that you can't just get divorced at the drop of a hat."

Communal good? What happened to greed is good, by thyne bootstraps be true, individual responsibility? And does anyone really get divorced at the drop of a hat? Does anyone get an abortion at the drop of a hat? So what do we have in the end?

Three "keepers" with reasonably fat paychecks who study and decry symptoms for a living, so that no matter what wacky fix they engineer, it will most likely be a failure. Have there been fundimental societal changes that call for a re-evaluation of the institution? Do economic concerns play a role? The last two questions will not be touched by anyone who's sources of funding come from right wing morality crusaders to be sure. Last but not least a sane voice is provided with the last column inch.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and author of a new history of marriage, said passing anti-gay amendments in hopes of returning marriage to some bygone traditional status is futile.

"Heterosexuals changed marriage, not gays and lesbians," she said. "None of these measures is going to change the fact that marriage no longer plays the same central economic and political role that it used to. ... People see it as more optional."

Reason trumps crotchsniffing, but crotchsniffing is alot more fun. it will be interseting to see if these moral crusaders will operate in the light of day convinced that their arguments are by no meens threatening to the majority or will they continue to work the refs from the sideline and under cover of darkness.