Saturday, November 20
My latest Catholic Register column
Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada's New Social Experiment
Edited by Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow
McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004
Reviewed by Kathy Shaidle
The anthology Divorcing Marriage begins promisingly, with Douglas Farrow's observation that the present marriage revolution is "Canada's romantic mistake". Marriage, say advocates for change, is all about adult fantasy and fulfillment, not the sacrifice of raising children or any other societal responsibility. (Observe the countless songs, novels and movies in which a wedding marks the story's triumphant, individualistic end, rather than its mundane, communal beginning.)
As well, Farrow writes, a romanticized view of the 1960s civil rights movement (again, nurtured by soaring anthems, Oscar-winning films, and standard issue school books) encourages the myth that all public struggles for "rights" deserve unquestioning support from "enlightened" people, lest they find themselves on "the wrong side of history."
In this overheated, non-intellectual environment, appeals to emotion are paramount -- because they succeed, swaying even the intelligentsia. In Divorcing Marriage, we encounter this dumbfounding, distressing example presented by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson:
Divorcing Marriage admits that heterosexuals haven't done much to keep marriage serious, sacred and secure. After generations of barefoot hippie weddings (not to mention the underwater and hot-air balloon variety), of escalating divorces and matter-of-fact adultery, marriage looks to many gays (and straights) like just a big excuse-to-party cum government entitlement grab. How dare we suddenly claim the moral high ground and deny gays the chance to make selfish, shallow fools of themselves, too?
Trouble is, the arguments against gay marriage in this book are founded on premises that, while perfectly logical to their authors, mean precisely nothing to those people whose minds we're trying to change. Faced with appeals to "tradition", to the indisputable fact that marriage has been confined to one man and one woman for 2000 years, the average gay activist (whose knowledge of history doesn't reach back beyond Judy Garland's comeback concert at Carnegie Hall) will simply shrug, "So what?"
As well, pointing out quite rightly that judicial activism smacks of totalitarianism carries little weight with leftists, who have, after all, been totalitarianism's eager handmaids for more than a century. Socialists and liberals do indeed want to force everyone to think and speak and live like them; it's the very point of their existence. Our counter arguments must begin by acknowledging that fact -- not end there, as if we're pulling something more surprising than a rabbit from our rhetorical hats. Unfortuantely, most of the writing in Divorcing Marriage follows this well-worn pattern.
Divorcing Marriage is clearly written, dutifully footnoted and altogether sensible and sound. I don't doubt that it is exactly the book everyone involved set out to produce.
But what practical use is it, really?
None of the authors seem terribly angry about our current state of affairs. Here we are, faced with a few spiteful publicity hounds trying to turn a sin into a sacrament nationwide, and outlaw any opposition to their wishes.
Our response? Consider the book's very last line, penned by Daniel Cere:
Here again our cousins south of the border put us to shame. Right wing Americans produce a non-stop stream of popular polemics -- in magazines and bestselling books, on radio and the Internet -- and get results (witness the defeat of every single gay marriage proposition the night of the last Presidential election).
Then again, maybe Canadians don't even care enough to stop this juggernaut. The results of our last election don't leave me with much hope. As long as that "free" health "care" keeps on dribbling out of that rusty old pipe, we don't seem to mind much what the government and courts get up to.
As indicated by Divorcing Marriage, our side suffers no shortage of thoughtful, intelligent, articulate people. What we need are more rude, ruthless and furious ones.
Then again, it may be too late.
Edited by Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow
McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004
Reviewed by Kathy Shaidle
The anthology Divorcing Marriage begins promisingly, with Douglas Farrow's observation that the present marriage revolution is "Canada's romantic mistake". Marriage, say advocates for change, is all about adult fantasy and fulfillment, not the sacrifice of raising children or any other societal responsibility. (Observe the countless songs, novels and movies in which a wedding marks the story's triumphant, individualistic end, rather than its mundane, communal beginning.)
As well, Farrow writes, a romanticized view of the 1960s civil rights movement (again, nurtured by soaring anthems, Oscar-winning films, and standard issue school books) encourages the myth that all public struggles for "rights" deserve unquestioning support from "enlightened" people, lest they find themselves on "the wrong side of history."
In this overheated, non-intellectual environment, appeals to emotion are paramount -- because they succeed, swaying even the intelligentsia. In Divorcing Marriage, we encounter this dumbfounding, distressing example presented by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson:
"Consider also the recent ruling on gay marriage by an Ontario court. Justice Robert A. Blair found that the evidence presented by opponents of gay marriage 'does not reflect the same personal poignancy as that of the Applicants.' By now, politicians know they can win support by claiming to "feel your pain" (as President Clinton did) or win sympathy by offering emotional apologies for misconduct (as Svend Robinson, among the leading lights of Canada's New Democratic Party, did more recently.) This mentality has been fostered for thirty years on the popular level, especially by daytime talk shows."Note the intersection between "mere" pop culture and society's media/political/artistic elite, who so often affect disdain for such things. How, precisely, did a provincial court come to resemble The Phil Donohue Show circa 1977 without more than a handful of us blinking an eye?
Divorcing Marriage admits that heterosexuals haven't done much to keep marriage serious, sacred and secure. After generations of barefoot hippie weddings (not to mention the underwater and hot-air balloon variety), of escalating divorces and matter-of-fact adultery, marriage looks to many gays (and straights) like just a big excuse-to-party cum government entitlement grab. How dare we suddenly claim the moral high ground and deny gays the chance to make selfish, shallow fools of themselves, too?
Trouble is, the arguments against gay marriage in this book are founded on premises that, while perfectly logical to their authors, mean precisely nothing to those people whose minds we're trying to change. Faced with appeals to "tradition", to the indisputable fact that marriage has been confined to one man and one woman for 2000 years, the average gay activist (whose knowledge of history doesn't reach back beyond Judy Garland's comeback concert at Carnegie Hall) will simply shrug, "So what?"
As well, pointing out quite rightly that judicial activism smacks of totalitarianism carries little weight with leftists, who have, after all, been totalitarianism's eager handmaids for more than a century. Socialists and liberals do indeed want to force everyone to think and speak and live like them; it's the very point of their existence. Our counter arguments must begin by acknowledging that fact -- not end there, as if we're pulling something more surprising than a rabbit from our rhetorical hats. Unfortuantely, most of the writing in Divorcing Marriage follows this well-worn pattern.
Divorcing Marriage is clearly written, dutifully footnoted and altogether sensible and sound. I don't doubt that it is exactly the book everyone involved set out to produce.
But what practical use is it, really?
None of the authors seem terribly angry about our current state of affairs. Here we are, faced with a few spiteful publicity hounds trying to turn a sin into a sacrament nationwide, and outlaw any opposition to their wishes.
Our response? Consider the book's very last line, penned by Daniel Cere:
"The good folk of the Shire, in whom our tradition of patience, politeness and respect for others largely resides, must be roused to take up this challenge."I frankly can't conceive of a less promising or more depressing conclusion. I see Canadian conservatives are still stuck writing "shocked and appalled" letters to the editor, while our opponents own all the newspapers -- not to mention the tv stations, schools and courts.
Here again our cousins south of the border put us to shame. Right wing Americans produce a non-stop stream of popular polemics -- in magazines and bestselling books, on radio and the Internet -- and get results (witness the defeat of every single gay marriage proposition the night of the last Presidential election).
Then again, maybe Canadians don't even care enough to stop this juggernaut. The results of our last election don't leave me with much hope. As long as that "free" health "care" keeps on dribbling out of that rusty old pipe, we don't seem to mind much what the government and courts get up to.
As indicated by Divorcing Marriage, our side suffers no shortage of thoughtful, intelligent, articulate people. What we need are more rude, ruthless and furious ones.
Then again, it may be too late.
