Not too long ago, I scribbled a note to myself, observing that there was more serious debate on gay marriage on conservative blogs and other right-of-center websites (i.e., those of magazines and think tanks) than on left-of-center websites, even including those operated by gay individuals and institutions.
I’d certainly have to do a few google searches to make my case.Â Well, today, just going through the accumulated e-mail in my in-box has made that task a lot easier, at least for the first part of the equation.
The National Review posted Deroy Murdock’s response to Maggie Gallagher’s question, “if the word “marriage” can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like ‘monogamy’ or ‘fidelity’?“Â Deroy takes social conservatives to task for their silence on AshleyMadison.com, a web-siteÂ promotind extramarital affairs:
Clearly, straight-marriage fans fret about what two men wearing wedding bands might do to a man and woman with rings on their fingers. Whether this concern is scientific or superstitious, surely they must acknowledge that seeing Bob and Steve together in a porch swing is trivial compared to Adam philandering with his new AshleyMadison.com adulteress as Eve waits at home, watches dinner grow cold, and wonders why on Earth he’s so late.
Maggie contends she didn’t denounce the website as the publicity of her criticism might serve to “help pad their profits.”Â Instead, she would
Revive the old alienation-of-affections tort as a new “tort of adultery” directed at third parties who actively encourage and facilitate adultery. (We could limit it to “commercial enterprises.”) Then let the cuckolded husbands and abandoned wives, and children of divorce, recover some of that website’s profits.
In a further post, she offers that “scientific data confirms gay marriage and the ‘progressive’ attitudes towards family structure tend to go hand-in-hand â€” not only here, but everywhere around the world.”
To respond to Maggie’s second point, serious proponents of gay marriage should offer legislation which at the same time as it calls for state recognition of same-sex marriage strengthens the tort laws she mentions agove.Â Not just that, they could promote legislation eliminating no-fault divorce, making divorces more difficult to obtain.
It would be nice to see gay marriage advocates not only pushing for state recognition of same-sex marriage, but also for laws strengthening the institution itself.Â It would show that they’re serious about the object of their activism, that they understand marriage to be far more than just another in a series of “rights” designed to further “full equality.”