Your post is just about the best thing I’ve read in these forums.

I had a chance to read the original article and agree Mr. Schulman is deeply cynical, but mixes this sentiment with an astonishing strain of naivete.

Mr. Schulman observes women in the public sphere are subject to rape, dehumanization, and abuse. But rather than suggesting this public sphere be transformed, he deems it necessarily to therefore ferret them into the private sphere. He suggests this is for their own good, but uses deeply patriarchal language in its defense: “This most profound aspect of marriage–protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex–is its only true reason for being…”

What he does not explain is how men who would otherwise abuse and objectify women are suddenly to be transformed into doting husbands and attentive fathers by virtue of a wedding band.

Conveniently, Mr. Schulman does not bring up domestic abuse, adultery, or abandonment; we are to assume once married women are socially “safe.”

In between these arguments are some suggestions that can only be categorized as asinine: Mr. Schulman, who confesses to having been married three times, advises gay couples that they won’t find marriage much fun, admitting: “Many of us feel that licit sexuality loses, moreover, a bit of its oomph. Gay lovers live merrily free of this system.”

He goes on to suggest, gay marriage will inevitably “disappoint or bore the couples now so eager for its creation … I suspect that the gay marriage movement will be remembered as a faintly humorous, even embarrassing stage in the liberation saga of the gay minority.”

And one can’t but pity his spouses for this public pronouncement “But without social disapproval of unmarried sex–what kind of madman would seek marriage?”—a choice he later categorizes as picking up the “chains of the kinship system.”

In the end, Mr. Schulman manages to insult nearly everyone: Gay people, straight people, men and women alike.

And it remains deeply disturbing to me that he was given a platform on this show. I imagine if a woman were invited on public radio to discuss how marriage is good is for men, indeed “exists” for men, we would at a minimum expect her to bring some scientific studies and some valid experience by which she could claim to be an expert on men’s sexuality and its expression in society.

Mr. Schulman met none of these criterion. Is it still so easy for men to “speak” for women’s sexuality? What does it say that an author who defends marriage for its ability to “control” and “protect” the sexuality of half the population is invited on the airwaves as guest and–at it implies–expert?

Though I do take comfort in how many people objected to his arguments, I remain demoralized over this entire episode.

If, you’d like me to name some names, I will. How about Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, or Colleen Carroll Campbell? Both of these are cogent, competent and courageous in their stand for marriage.

As you address this issue in the future, please do some more homework beforehand.

We should have two types of unions, one civil which would be all about legal rights and one religious for those who choose it. My understanding of marriage is that it is a covenant between two individuals and their God. This could be very different depending on which church you belong to. There are many people who would choose the church marriage over the civil union (I know at least two couples who have) because of financial reasons.

Having two types of unions would eliminate the religious controversy as to whether homosexuality is a sin except in each individual church, synagogue, and house of religion.

BTY, I work with youth, in a very short time this will become a non-issue. Youth don’t get what the big deal is. On this issue, they are much more evolved than many adults!

Based on the notes that I took, I would guess that Schulman has a fairly negative view of human beings and human relationships. Men are not able to be faithful to women unless they are bound within a marriage commitment. Individuals are not able to abstain from sexual relationships with parents or offspring unless they are bound within a man-woman marriage commitment. Women do not have the “moral authority” to ask men to be faithful outside of a man-woman marriage commitment. Women are not able to care for themselves and must be bound within a man-woman marriage commitment.

In such a situation, the man’s role is significant. In each family there needs to be a father figure with either “legal or religious” recognition. Men, though unable to make and keep commitments outside of marriage, are the key to good families. I think for Schulman, the marriage institution itself takes flawed humanity and creates the structure that will transform these human failings into an acceptably moral form of relationship.

Generally, this view is usually based on the idea of original sin. Genesis 2 tells the story of the snake who convinced Eve to eat the forbidden apple, who in turn convinced Adam to do the same. The author of the story then blames Eve, and all future women, for the entire problem of evil. Rest assured, when we do our homework on this passage, we can find a much larger story.

Personally, I think that those who are afraid that same-sex marriages will change everything, are right. Same-sex marriages, equal relationships between women and women and between men and men, tell us that we do not need a man as “head of household”. It removes men from that dominant role in the family. Since the way a man rules his family has been considered evidence of how he will function in the larger society, since patriarchy has functioned to benefit the position of men in many societies around the world, removing men as “head of household”, also threatens the dominant male role in the rest of society.

As a feminist and a theologian, as one who champions justice as an expression of faithful religion, I say, thank God! It’s about time! I am totally in support of same-sex marriage! “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24)

If logic reigned, you’d think they’d make the opposite argument, gay couples who don’t get married reminds me that you can be a couple and not get married. Obviously gay marriages strengthen the institution of marriage.

Great interview.

So when you hear folk talking about, ‘protecting marriage,’ what they are really saying is, ‘protect my illusory sense of heterosexuality.

Roughly one third of children are born out of wedlock. That means just two thirds of children are born to married parents. Roughly 50% of all marriages end in divorce so, all things being equal, half of the two thirds of children born to married parents will be raised in homes with parents who stay married. That leaves just one third of all children who will be born and raised by married parents and who will enjoy all the benefits Don A. references. Would that one third of parents that are left reject marriage or fail to remain married if they did not receive the benefits bestowed by the state? Of course not!

The bottom line is that these benefits are not at all effective in promoting marriage. They are nothing more than spoils doled out to the politically favored. Don A., why should the general public have to pay for political spoils?

Just remember the vehemence of the anti-same sex person is proportional to their unconscious desire for what they have become conditioned to believe they are repulsed by.

Cool! When can we, the openly faithful and patiently tolerant, all sit down to share the First Supper together? Count me IN. I’ll ride shotgun with you on that bus ride to liberation for ALL.
Peace,
Mari