Dec

29

Karl Rove gets a divorce. Gay marriage still illegal in most places.

Which wouldn’t be worth commentary, of course, except that he was behind President Bush’s lame and half-hearted 2004 effort to introduce a gay marriage ban into the Constitution.

It’s worth remembering what President Bush said in 2004 in the Rove-orchestrated attempt to capture the anti-gay vote:

A great deal is at stake in this matter. The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution. If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage. If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened. The Massachusetts court, for example, has called marriage “an evolving paradigm.” That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution.

Rove’s divorce, though, more or less proves that marriage is an evolving paradigm. No-fault divorce is, after all, a relatively recent phenomenon in Texas — I’m assuming, based on news reports, that neither Rove nor his wife alleged adultery or cruelty as part of the divorce petition — and across the United States. Before 1970 or so, here’s how divorce worked in the United States:

Prior to the no-fault divorce revolution, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault of one of the parties in a marriage. This was something more than not loving one another; it meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery, abandonment, felony, or other similarly culpable acts. However, the other spouse could plead a variety of defenses, like recrimination(essentially an accusation of “so did you”). A judge could find that the respondent had not committed the alleged act or the judge could accept the defense of recrimination and find both spouses at fault for the dysfunctional nature of their marriage. Either way, the judge could refuse to dissolve the marriage, although it was also possible for the judge to grant one or both parties a divorce.

Now you can argue that no-fault divorce came about as a result of “judicial activism.” It was the California Supreme Court that originally struck down laws stipulating the requirements for divorce. And you can argue the subsequent rise in divorce shows that the court was in error. But most reasonable people, I think, recognize that forcing two people to remain legally entangled in a marriage that one or both wants to leave would represent an abhorrent level of government activity in the private realm.

Of course, Karl Rove’s divorce doesn’t mean that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry. But in the absence of explicitly religious arguments against gay marriage — arguments the state isn’t allowed to make or use as justifications for its decisions, opponents of gay marriage have resorted to appeals to ” tradition” (as President Bush did above) or “natural law” to defend straights-only marriage as the unchanging and correct order of things. But marriage changes. It has always been changing. Karl Rove today is the beneficiary of that process.

UPDATE: RightPundits.com suggests I’m among the legions of left-leaning journalists rubbing hands “with glee” over the failure of Rove’s marriage. Not at all. Marriage is tough, and I’d never wish ill toward anybody else’s relationship — no matter how misguided I might think them on political matters.

But Rove made a concerted effort to push the marriage status of hundreds of thousands of Americans to the center stage of the political process. He treated the issue like a political plaything. Which is easier to do when it’s an abstract notion. Only problem is: For each one of those couples, it’s not at all an abstract issue. And if a politician’s private behavior is at odds with their political stances, well: It’s the job of journalists and pundits to point out that kind of stuff. Hypocrisy is rampant in Washington D.C., of course, but it still matters.

And hey, RightPundits readers! Welcome!

Joel Mathis | 2:51 PM | 14 Comments

Uncategorized, divorce, gay marriage, karl rove, marriage

Ben Boychuk Says: Dec 29 3:16 PM

What are we to conclude from that enigmatic link to the New York Times Magazine profile of Robert George? That natural law arguments are as fallacious as mere appeals to tradition? That George’s arguments (and not just George’s) are somehow Potemkin constructs? Or what? I’m not sure you can just wave your hand at that one, Joel.
lyle canterbury Says: Dec 29 3:26 PM

What does Karl Rove getting a divorce have to do with gay marriage? Headlines these days make me want to vomit in the face of those who twist words and make up things just to create a catchy headline whether its bogus or not
enough already
Joel Mathis Says: Dec 29 3:34 PM

A confession: I’m not nearly as steeped in “natural law” as you are, Ben. I’ve read and re-read the NYT piece, but I’ve not read a lot of George. (My first gloss and very surface level impression is similar to Andrew Sullivan’s: That George starts out with his conclusion and works from there.) But honestly: all I’ve got right now is a hand wave and some reading I feel I ought to do.

In this case, I wanted to acknowledge that line of thought is out there while talking more broadly about the idea of marriage as an evolving paradigm.

I’ll crack open that natural law book, I promise.
Joel Mathis Says: Dec 29 3:34 PM

Lyle: Maybe you should read the blog post if you really want an explanation. Given your comment, I’m guessing you didn’t.

Captcha: “at mentally”
Carol Tensen Says: Dec 29 3:40 PM

What does Karl Rove getting a divorce have to do with gay marriage? When the issue of banning gay marriage was put on the ballot in California, the main argument that the “Yes on 8″ camp put forth was that allowing gay marriage would erode or somehow harm existing traditional marriage. The opponents of gay marriage usually invoke the Bible. Unfortunately, they missed a statement that says what God hates most is divorce. In October John Marcotte, a local gadfly/blogger, decided to call their bluff and is trying to put in a ballot measure banning divorce. I hope this helps connect the dots for you, Lyle.
Joe Mustich, JP Says: Dec 29 4:09 PM

Perhaps it’s time to ban divorce in order to save the institution of marriage…..

Onward to equality,
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Pecae,
Washington, Connecticut, USA.
Joe Mustich, JP Says: Dec 29 4:10 PM

that’s Justice of the Peace
John Andola Says: Dec 29 5:36 PM

I may be way over my head, but using Robert George’s own line of thinking, if there can be a just war, does it not also follow that there can be a just abortion? Both are wrong (killing is killing) but he allows for the one and not the other. I agree with those who say George starts out with his personal conclusion and then attempts to build a case from there.
once a while Says: Dec 29 6:44 PM

Who would want to be married to that toad to begin with .. but for his money I guess he couldnt get a cow to wed him ..
Karl Rove Divorce Defies Party Norms » Right Pundits Says: Dec 29 7:50 PM

[...] in the infidelities of GOP politicians like John Ensign, Tom Foley, and Mark Sanford. Hands are rubbed with glee as newsroom reporters play up the stories in above the fold [...]
Wry Mouth Says: Dec 29 8:22 PM

“marriage is an evolving paradigm…” you know where *I* would go with this. To equate divorce-between-male-and-female-spouses with attempting-to-form-a-genetically-linked-family-unit-using-only-males-or-females as equal types of “evolving” is equating evolving different colored moths from each other with evolving warm-blooded animals from cold-blooded.

Always note: my point is not to get on my high horse and say gay people shouldn’t be allowed to cohabitate in peace, with all rights and privileges pertaining thereto. You know me better than that.

My point is: people *have* to be aware of what they are messing with, if they are going to try and convince a bunch of people — who in the back of their ancient minds still hold to an ancient concept since time-out-of-mind — to “evolve” their conception of “marriage” intentionally.

Captcha: new chill !
Wry Mouth Says: Dec 29 8:30 PM

PS re: “or ‘natural law’ to defend straights-only marriage..” thanks for the link! It is nice to know that more well-known and respected people think along lines similar to what I have “evolved” on my own! ;o)

Of course, your caveat of “straights-only” attached to “marriage” reveals your bias, as my continued use of mere “marriage” reveals mine.

Captcha: load Lahoud
Sally Kern Says No Divorce For You | Wired For Noise Says: Jan 5 8:19 AM

[...] Or someone remembers Kern’s “gays are the biggest threat” speech and links it to Karl Rove’s push to ban gay marriage. Conservative hypocrisy tastes like homemade cookies fresh from the oven. [...]
Jesus Christ: Karl Rove’s divorce destroys the Sanctity of Marriage : William K. Wolfrum Chronicles Says: Feb 3 9:14 AM

[...] door for same-sex marriages, as now all marriages are considered equal in the eyes of the Lord, and the burning hypocrisy of same-sex marriage protesters can now no longer be ignored. The Savior’s ruling, however, will have no effect on whether [...]