Replacing Traditional Values

In the July 5^th edition of the Casa Grande Dispatch there was an opinion piece with the byline of Star Parker entitled Replacing Traditional Values. She did not specify who's traditions but from the article I guess we can assume she meant American traditions, United States specifically. This is an assumption on my part and I will admit that now, before I continue with this rebuttal.

Quote: “I see nothing that says it's the job of judges to explain to the American people why institutions like marriage, that have defined and long preceded our nation, exist and what they mean.”

I see nothing that says a judge cannot explain the reasoning that went into their decision. Just because the Constitution doesn't say it's their job doesn't mean they can't explain why they did something.

As for the institutions of marriage preceding our nation, I agree, they did. They also preceded the Book of Genesis she later quotes, but a lot of those Hebrews in that book had a lot more than one wife. So, specifically, who's traditions should we be following? We have many choices:

• Arranged polygynous (one man & more than one wife) marriages, with the women having no choice.
  
  
• Arranged monogamous (two people only) marriages, with the women having no choice.
  
  
• Arranged monogamous or polygynous marriages, with neither the men or women having a choice.
  
  
• Non-arranged monogamous, polygynous, polyandrous (one woman, 2+ men) or polyamorous (2+ men, 2+ women) marriages.
  
  
• Serial monogamy (divorce and remarry another person), which anthropologists consider a form of polygamy (any non-monogamous marriage). Very traditional in the U.S.
  
  
• Bigamy (marry more than one partner illegally).
  
  
• Monogamous marriage while having sex with others. Also traditional in the U.S.
  
  
• Marriages made for political reasons, with the men and/or women having a choice or not.
  
  
• Marriage for money.
  
  
• Marriage for security.
  
  
• Marriage for sex.
  
  
• Marriage because of peer pressure and/or societal pressure.
  
  
• Marriage for love.

I'm sure some people can think of even more.

All, or most, of these have been practiced in the U.S. at some time in our history. Polygyny is still practiced, even though it is illegal and not as common as it once was. Monogamy and Serial Monogamy are still legal in the U.S.

So pick a tradition. Just about any marriage arrangement is traditional.

Let's not forget about sex, co-habitation and other living arrangements outside of marriage. Those are also traditional, they've been around as long as people have (maybe longer).

Okay, enough about traditional marriage, let's move on to Ms. Parker's reference for the definition of marriage, the Book of Genesis (a non-authoritative source).

The part she quoted does say that God made woman from Adam's rib. 

However, it was Adam, not God that she quotes after that:

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

So, since it was Adam that said it, how much bearing does it actually have on reality? Note that this was before Adam ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, so he was pretty ignorant when he said that. Nowhere in that quote does it actually define marriage, nor does it limit marriage to only one definition.

I wonder what she thinks about public nudity since that was mentioned in the same passage.

Using the bible as a reference is a doubtful way to get your point across, anyway, since most people don't take the bible literally, as is proven by Ms. Parker's interpretation of the passages she used as a reference. Did she leave out the part “And Adam said,” on purpose? Put a little spin on something that is so easily checked? Like Rush Limbaugh and his ilk? Not that bad, they just bold-faced lie.

And a lot of people take the bible as good fiction.

“The degradation of marriage is but the last chapter.”

Really? What degradation of marriage? I ask. Marriage is no more degraded than it ever has been.

“Kennedy is so absorbed in creating reality that he appears oblivious that any reality might exist outside his own imagination.”

I contend that it is Ms. Parker that is creating her own reality.

“In 1960, 9% of American adults over 25 had never married. Today it is 20%.”

“In 1960, about 5% of our babies were born to unwed mothers. Now it is 41%.”

Cause and effect? She is trying to establish the “degradation of marriage” by using facts without showing the cause and effects. More spin.

How about... another opinion with cause and effects.

“In 1960, 9% of American adults over 25 had never married.”

What percentage married only because their peers and society demanded it?

“Today it is 20%.”

More people resisting societal and peer pressure thereby changing society's expectations and norms?

“In 1960 about 5% of our babies were born to unwed mothers.”

What percentage got married only because they were pregnant? How many men were forced to marry because they got a woman pregnant?

“Now it is 41%.”

Indications that more men and women are resisting societal and peer pressure thereby changing society's expectations and norms?

See how that was done? I quoted the same facts, as presented by Ms. Parker, and came to exactly the opposite conclusions. Personally, I think mine are much closer to reality.

Next point of contention.

“The marriage redefinition movement has been driven by two motivations: 1) de-legitimization of religion, and 2) expansion of the welfare state.”

What evidence does she provide for either of these motivations that she ascribes to a movement that she provides no evidence it even exists? None. What does the welfare state have to do with marriage? She explains that opinion with no corroborating facts next.

“It is no accident that as marriage has broken down, dependence on government has exploded. The percentage of our national budget consisting of transfer payments to individuals has expanded from less than 30% in 1960 to around 70% today.”

What is the correlation of that statement to anything? The alleged breakdown of marriage has caused the federal government to give more money to people, or give more people money? Again I ask, cause and effect? Is it possible that the increase in population and the worsening economy just might affect this a tiny, little bit? Much more than anything to do with marriage, anyway.

The she goes on to make statements about God-given truths, arbitrary political power, a vacuum of degraded truths and a degraded Constitution. God-given truths? When did God give them? Don't use the bible as reference, it is not authoritative. Arbitrary political power? Hasn't it always been? That's why we try to keep some control on the politicians. A vacuum of degraded truths? She would prefer a proliferation of degraded truths? A degraded Constitution? She has a valid point there, but it is caused by power hungry politicians and big business not by anything to do with marriage, and when wasn't it?

I know Star Parker's article was on the Comment page and is therefore opinion, but even opinion should be related to reality in some way. Cherry-picking partial facts without even trying to show how they relate to your statements is simply arrogant and lazy.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.