David, where exactly did you find this research?

“The institution of marriage is not one of fixed social constructs frozen in the white picket fences of yesteryear. The social conservative notion of the “traditional marriage,” the intellectually bankrupt brainchild of Anita Bryant, purposefully ignores marriage’s tumultuous history of change. From its inception, marriage was a loveless institution, focused solely on increasing financial stability and the family work-force, and a means to enforce obedience in a fiercely patriarchal society.”

This paragraph is pure bullshit.

James, as a liberal Republican you have a poor grasp of social conservativism. The social conservative position was nicely stated by American Elephant in his comment above. Anita Bryant’s views on homosexuality were driven by her reactionary religious attitude. Social conservatism and religious attitudes are not the same.

As for marriage itself, it predates civilization, and has been practiced in matriarchal and patriarchal cultures alike.

Furthermore, I think it can be stated with confidence that your secular view of marriage’s origins is all wrong. Marriage certainly began with mythic thinking: the male and female together as the image of the divine. And it is this very concern that drives opposition to same-sex “marriage” today.

They provide the impetus for the Court’s highly inventive reading of the State’s equal rights amendment which forced same-sex marriage on Massachusetts, yet they can’t really take advantage of the legal right their activism won.

Seems like poetic justice to me.

Also, you are confusing the reasons individual couples get married (love, financial stability, etc) with the reason society subsidizes marriage through the government. Two very different things. You ought to read up on some of the statutes and court decisions spelling out those reasons.

Marriage provides great benefits to society, which is the real reason we encourage it through our government. Any talk of changing the institution needs to focus on the stated purpose of the institution, and whether changing it will serve to better fulfill that purpose or not.

After four attempts to craft some sort of response to your assertions in this article… I find myself with only one thing to say — Kudos.

There may be hope for you, after-all, Mr. James Richardson.

@Alan – you have to at least be 60 or 70 years old. The Religious Right has been a strong faction of the Republican Party for many years – and a winning strategy up until now.

On the actual substance – It’s tough to admit, but doesn’t this prove the “natural” argument to be false? We live in a post modern society where divorce on demand is the ‘norm.’ Sad, but I’d have to agree with James on this one.

I don’t know about this “culture war,” however when it’s all said and done – let’s get the Government out of the supposed “sacred” institution of marriage. Ha.

Half of the country gets divorced and you don’t hear a peep from Mineau on the societal implications (Oh, think of the poor child, blah, blah, blah). That prick needs to take a walk and get out of the Goodridge’s business.