Chime: I don't believe that that indicates that legal gay marriage causes a dissipation in marriage on the whole--it is entirely possible that that cause/effect relationship is backwards. (If people don't care as much about marriage, then it's reasonable to expect they'd be more likely to allow same-sex couples to do it.)
Actually, I think it's both. Yes, the lack of concern about marriage makes people more inclined to accept same-sex ones. But the reason they are less inclined to care is that they have a (relatively new) definition for marriage: they view it as merely involving people who "love" each other (read: have romantic feelings for and/or are shagging each other). If gay marriage is commonly accepted, the former definition gets locked into place legally; that is, after all, how the courts have been forcing it into law.
This reasoning makes a certain degree of sense: If marriage really is nothing more than a) some combination of people involved in sexual relations with one another who b) wish to formalize that relationship, then restricting marriage to only heterosexual pairings is obviously discriminatory. But I don't think that definition really does explain what marriage is (or what, more accurately, it is supposed to be).
On Massachusetts's low divorce rate, two points: 1) Gay marriage is just beginning in MA, so we don't have any data about what effect it is having, and won't for another five to ten years, and 2) these numbers would make clear that despite having strong marriage values, they still felt that gays should be included, if it was their decision. It wasn't. Their Supreme Court, acting against their wishes, did it for them. We really can't judge anything about the marriage culture in MA by the fact their judiciary leans left.
(This, incidentally, leads to another argument--not against gay marriage, but against the methods used to enact it--which I found on your own LJ. It notes the general distaste and anger generated when individuals have Supreme Court rulings shoved down their throats. It's worth a read, particularly given it addresses an issue that will come up again--regarding both sides--when I discuss abortion.)
Continuing the Gay Marriage Debate, Part 1
Actually, I think it's both. Yes, the lack of concern about marriage makes people more inclined to accept same-sex ones. But the reason they are less inclined to care is that they have a (relatively new) definition for marriage: they view it as merely involving people who "love" each other (read: have romantic feelings for and/or are shagging each other). If gay marriage is commonly accepted, the former definition gets locked into place legally; that is, after all, how the courts have been forcing it into law.
This reasoning makes a certain degree of sense: If marriage really is nothing more than a) some combination of people involved in sexual relations with one another who b) wish to formalize that relationship, then restricting marriage to only heterosexual pairings is obviously discriminatory. But I don't think that definition really does explain what marriage is (or what, more accurately, it is supposed to be).
On Massachusetts's low divorce rate, two points: 1) Gay marriage is just beginning in MA, so we don't have any data about what effect it is having, and won't for another five to ten years, and 2) these numbers would make clear that despite having strong marriage values, they still felt that gays should be included, if it was their decision. It wasn't. Their Supreme Court, acting against their wishes, did it for them. We really can't judge anything about the marriage culture in MA by the fact their judiciary leans left.
(This, incidentally, leads to another argument--not against gay marriage, but against the methods used to enact it--which I found on your own LJ. It notes the general distaste and anger generated when individuals have Supreme Court rulings shoved down their throats. It's worth a read, particularly given it addresses an issue that will come up again--regarding both sides--when I discuss abortion.)