Vanderleun glances at something interesting:
Ironically, a young generation that considers the struggle for same-sex marriage the civil rights struggle of its day is choosing to avoid the marital estate.
Minnesota voters will have an opportunity to define marriage this fall:
The question would be presented to voters as follows:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
If passed, the Minnesota Constitution will be Amended:
Article XIII; Section 13.
Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.
From all I see and ovehear, the cool kids are clearly voting “no”. Supporting gay marriage seems more about making one’s own identity than thinking through what marriage means.
Normal hetero marriage has been corrupted by legislation that denies the male’s rights to property and the father’s right to custody of any children. I have been persuaded to believe that a man who marries a woman is a fool.
Or, he is making a social statement. Just like the homosexuals want to do. Marriage in popular culture is no longer a sacrament before God. It’s merely a parallel to wearing each other’s school rings, a more enduring version of “going steady”. More enduring, bar far from permanent.
The kids today don’t put much value on the concept of marriage. So their willingness to dilute it represents no loss. Social status-signaling today is more important than making a multi-generational (and theoretically eternal) commitment to another soul.
It isn’t difficult to imagine a time when the majority of marriages are same-sex. Marriage is a lever for gay people to assert some mainstream normalcy. They have something to gain. And without the biological complications of raising younger children, gay parents are freed to set their own terms in the courts. When a gay marriage fails, we have no set of rules about which mommy little Heather gets to spend weekends with. Gay parents have nothing to lose.
Meanwhile, the established inequality of the law for non-gay marriages can only lead to fewer couples submitting to each other in such a formal way. Their identities are safe as long as they support gay marriage. The irony of discarding marriage for themselves fits with the hipster ethos.
Many straight couples will marry as an inside joke. And the ceremonies will take on a certain “gay” character, as the gay community will assume ownership of all the pomp and public trappings of becoming a wedded couple.