Comments on: Promoting marriage and Christianity in America

By: Melanie Heath

Melanie Heath — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:19:21 +0000

In response to the comments of Jonathan Watson and John Husted on what they perceive to be an inappropriate (“incendiary”) insertion of race in my analysis of marriage promotion, I point their attention to the growing body of sociological research on race that details the pervasiveness of racial politics in contemporary society (i.e., Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation In The United States, Routledge (1986); Second Edition (1994)). My research findings point to the social consequences, whether intended or unintended, of marriage promotion policies that deliver marriage services to the general population. For an overview of marriage promotion programs, including those that deliver services to the general population rather than target low-income populations, see Ooms, T., Bouchet, S., & Parke, M. (2004). Beyond Marriage Licenses: Efforts in States to Strengthen Marriage and Two-Parent Families. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

By: John Husted

John Husted — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:33:40 +0000

Isn’t it incendiary to toss race into the equation—that these initiatives seek to promote only the form of “white” marriages?

The only support you offer for this sweeping claim is your own “ethnographic research” of one state (Oklahoma), which showed merely that the state provided, “marriage education…to many white, middle-class, heterosexual couples.” This does not by a long shot conclusively prove your claim that only the form of “white” marriage is promoted.

Your reasoning does not add up. One may presume, then, an over-eager motive on your part to equate sexual-preference to race, a la Loving v. Virginia, regardless of the [lack of] facts.

That aside, your article starts from the faulty premise that the state’s promotion of hetero-marriage is inherently unjust and unjustified. On the contrary, doesn’t the state have the right or perhaps even the duty to promote institutions that promote/are necessary for the state’s own well-being?

Isn’t there support for the state’s actions? For instance, isn’t it common knowledge that strong, healthy hetero-marriages, in general, promote the proliferation of strong, healthy future citizens—citizens that have a greater chance of becoming productive members of society and of not becoming burdens on the state, etc.?

And doesn’t the state have a similar duty to require substantial conclusive evidence that a new institution, in this case gay marriage, will provide comparable benefits, and will not bring new burdens to the state before the state promotes that new institution as equal in all respects to the existing institution of hetero-marriage? Is an opportunity to give off the appearance that the state supports a supposed equality of sexual-preference alone enough of a reason for the state to promote an institution that may or may not have substantial deleterious effects? According to your article it is.

If I misunderstand your reasoning and intent, please, set me “straight.”

By: Jonathan Watson

Jonathan Watson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:12:01 +0000

Heath states: “Still, the current portrayal of this conflict does foreground the complex relationship of marriage, religion, and the state to promote one form of marriage (white, heterosexual, monogamous). It is same-sex marriage’s (and polygamy’s) challenge to this interrelationship that provokes such anxiety among religious conservatives.”

The great majority of religious conservatives, of any race, are concerned about heterosexual and monogamous marriage. Where does “white” come into it, and how do same-sex marriage and polygamy proponents challenge “white”? Is your comment an attempt to interject the argument that same-sex marriage proponents and the plaintiffs in Loving are facing the same legal and cultural battle? If so, come out and say it and make the argument that they are the same.