Cynthia (clueless again) Tucker: Gay marriage: Why the fuss?

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 2.22.04 | Cynthia Tucker

[mhking]

Like many other states, Georgia is in a dire budget crunch -- cutting money for health care for the poor, parks, college professors and state troopers. Though the state longs to get its school children out of the academic cellar, it is cutting funds that would shrink the size of classes and improve the climate for learning.

So what is so critical that it dominates debate at the Legislature this session instead? The issue that has consumed contentious hours of talk and testimony is gay marriage -- or, rather, "protecting" traditional marriage from same-sex unions. After public hearings that drew crowds of religious conservatives as well as gay activists, the Georgia Senate passed a bill calling for a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. (Georgia law already prohibits recognition of same-sex unions.) It awaits consideration in the Georgia House.

I admit that I'm puzzled by the intense focus on the prospect of gay marriage -- not just in Georgia but also in the White House, with President Bush threatening to throw his support behind a ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution. The president, like the Georgia Legislature, would seem to have more pressing concerns: The federal budget is awash in red ink; Iraq is mired in turmoil; the vaunted economic "recovery" has left millions of Americans jobless. Bush believes a priority should be throwing obstacles in the way of gay unions?

What is it about the prospect of allowing same-sex couples the right to pledge fidelity, loyalty and love to each other -- as heterosexuals do -- that threatens the foundations of the republic?

For many religious conservatives, the issue is simple enough: Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an "abomination." But the guiding legal document of a pluralistic nation has no business recognizing one religious view over any other. Some denominations -- including my own, the United Church of Christ -- have no prohibition against same-sex marriages.

(A literal reading of the Bible, by the way, poses many a conundrum. Leviticus also orders capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers.)

Many Americans view marriage only as an institution ordained by religion, but it is also recognized by civil authorities. While no church could ever be ordered to recognize or perform same-sex marriages, the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees full equality to all, should not block a courthouse marriage between two consenting adults.

But religion is just one consideration. Tradition is another. Even among many Americans who would not identify themselves as religious conservatives, there is a vague and unsettling fear of undermining the modern conception of marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman, especially when the institution is already in decline throughout the industrialized West.

The loosening of marriage bonds has taken place against a backdrop of rapid cultural and technological shifts; it has also struck every racial, demographic and religious segment of the population. Even among those who characterize themselves as born-again Christians, the rate of divorce is high, according to a 2001 survey by the Barna Research Group Ltd.

I understand the fears over the decline of marriage. Most psychologists agree that stable marriages are the best arrangement for children, and children reared in single-parent homes are more likely to suffer poor educational achievement and to be lured into drugs, early parenthood and crime.

But isn't that all the more reason to welcome gay marriage? At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals, one of the most promising developments is the deep desire of so many gays to commit themselves to marriage, with all its rewards and sacrifices.

Gays and lesbians deserve the right to succeed -- or fail -- at marriage just like the rest of us. When it comes right down to it, a constitutional amendment won't save marriage. That can only be done by couples, regardless of gender, one marriage at a time.

[nickcarraway]

She should research what happened in Scandinavia.

[Happygal]

I like gay people, but I've yet to find one, I'd want to marry! ;-)

[T.Smith]

I agree that the GA State Legislature could be taking care of a hell of a lot more important things than this. Their priorities are all out of order.

[tet68]

"At a time when marriage is rapidly losing its allure for so many heterosexuals....."

And the fact that gay and lesbian attempts to change the law
further erode the basis for that allure have nothing to do with it?

Cynthia, what a liberal mouthpiece you are.

[Vigilantcitizen]

Do you know what's happened to Mad Ivan?

[MegaSilver]

She should research what happened in Scandinavia.

I can probably guess, but just to be safe, what DID happen there?

[Tanniker Smith]

Gays and lesbians deserve the right to succeed -- or fail -- at marriage just like the rest of us.

Oh, come now. Gays have been failing at marriage for years. Mostly because they're gay. And their partners weren't.

TS
...

[Happygal]

Yes, he's fine. He's just not posting here at the moment.

[CommonSense007]

yet people that call themselves homosexuals want a law passed in their favor.

I'll say it a different way.
Passing a law, one must DEFINE what one is
trying to pass.

There is NO scientific evidence of a species
called "homosexuals".

If you are for "same sex unions" tell me what scientific evidence you have that says there is a species
called "homosexual" and present me the evidence.

To the mentally deficient here that say
"oh those wacky gays aren't bothering anyone
so let em get married"... I say to them
please state to me exactly what is a
homosexual with your scientific information.

If you can't DEFINE something scientifically
or even Lawfully as to when a person is
DEEMED HOMOSEXUAL then how can you pass a law
regarding this.

I'll say this in a different way, at what
age is the factor that one determines one
is a homosexual? 11? 12? 13? 14? Puberty?
Who decides your a "homosexual"? You? The STATE?
A Medical Doctor?

So you want the state a society to pass an law
based on "you feel gay"?

We all know what a male and a female is
and that male and females continutes the
human race.

So don't floss over and try and use the phrase
"same sex union" in law and then say
"gay marriage".

If you claim to be gay and or lesbian
put out there in legal terms/words
"gay marriage" in law, don't play your
politically correct words to us.

"same sex union" yeah right.

[Paleo Conservative]

"She should research what happened in Scandinavia."

I can probably guess, but just to be safe, what DID happen there?

Here's a link. I bet your guess is correct.

Look before We Leap: Scandinavia and the End of Marriage

[Blood of Tyrants]

Personally, I think that they started calling themselves "gay" hoping that somehow it would become a self fulfilling prophesy.

[Paleo Conservative]

Here's another link.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

[CommonSense007]

yet people that call themselves homosexuals want a law passed in their favor.

I'll say it a different way.
Passing a law, one must DEFINE what one is
trying to pass.

There is NO scientific evidence of a species
called "homosexuals".

If you are for "same sex unions" tell me what scientific evidence you have that says there is a species
called "homosexual" and present me the evidence.

To the mentally deficient here that say
"oh those wacky gays aren't bothering anyone
so let em get married"... I say to them
please state to me exactly what is a
homosexual with your scientific information.

If you can't DEFINE something scientifically
or even Lawfully as to when a person is
DEEMED HOMOSEXUAL then how can you pass a law
regarding this.

I'll say this in a different way, at what
age is the factor that one determines one
is a homosexual? 11? 12? 13? 14? Puberty?
Who decides your a "homosexual"? You? The STATE?
A Medical Doctor?

So you want the state a society to pass an law
based on "you feel gay"?

We all know what a male and a female is
and that male and females continues the
human race.

So don't floss over and try and use the phrase
"same sex union" in law and then say
"gay marriage".

If you claim to be gay and or lesbian
put out there in legal terms/words
"gay marriage" in law, don't play your
politically correct words to us.

"same sex union" yeah right.

[MegaSilver]

I bet your guess is correct.

As a matter of fact, I had no idea how right it would be.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Read this outstanding piece:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[upchuck]

Anybody know this lady's life expectancy?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Read this outstanding piece:

Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

[Viking2002]

When posting anything by Cynthia Tucker (or Molly Ivins, or Helen Thomas, etc.), please preface the article title with the warning 'SWINE ALERT'.

Thank you for your consideration. :-)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Sorry about the double post!