Posted on 07/18/2003 10:12:51 PM PDT by new cruelty
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
COMMENTARY-
My 3-year-old daughter has decided that she will marry her baby brother in a few years. She feels love toward her brother and wants to live with him forever, which, in her mind, means getting married. This makes sense to a 3-year-old. But at some point, my husband and I will explain what marriage is and what it is not.
When I don't condone my toddlers' getting married, am I toddlerphobic? Bigoted? Am I denying them equal rights under the law? No, I'm just explaining the facts -- marriage is a sacred and legal covenant between an unrelated man and woman. It may be understandable that a gay or lesbian couple wants legal recognition, but that couple cannot be married. Because no such state exists.
Marriage is the oldest institution in the world, and I would argue, exists outside of any temporal definition of it. Because of this, with few exceptions, every society down through history, and every major world religion, has recognized the same one-man, one-woman parameters. No court, no legislature, can change the fundamental structure of marriage. Only its Creator can change it, and it doesn't look like He is doing that any time soon.
All we as a society can do, then, is change our definition of marriage. And that would be a mistake. We would be trying to make marriage something it isn't, would be violating the conscience of millions of people for the sake of a small minority, and would be setting ourselves on a slippery slope to disaster. If we change our definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian couples today, what is next? Bigamy? Adult-child unions? I'm not being facetious.
If we don't hold an objective, unwavering line on what marriage is and is not, what grounds do we have for objecting to any type of marriage union? I happen to think that bigamy is sexist, abusive and demeaning to women (even women who choose it), but if society tries to make marriage something it is not, why shouldn't a patriarch be allowed to take three teenaged wives if he and they so choose?
The conservative opinion on this may seem unjust to some, but it is not. It is protecting the traditional definition of marriage against an onslaught that would undermine our society.
My heart goes out to my gay friends who may struggle with feeling unequal under the law, but compassion should not result in destroying the fundamental definition of society's most important institution. I believe the gay lifestyle is morally wrong, but a gay citizen is entitled to civil rights and a free choice of lifestyle like anyone else. Some may say, "Well, then I have the right to marry." Yes, of course you do. The only qualification is that you marry someone of the opposite sex.
REBUTTAL-
Shaunti is right. Marital unions outside of heterosexual unions do not truly reflect the spirit of marriage. Marriage is based on male property rights and commerce. This power structure can only exist between a man and woman. Or to use the very words of the Christian church -- words that aptly identify the power imbalance -- marriage can only exist between "man and wife."
Yet same sex partners still want to marry. Their desire to reap the same financial and social benefits of marriage, as their heterosexual counterparts, upsets the conservative community. Conservatives fear a deterioration of their traditional values and a precipitous decay of morals that will inevitably plummet down the slippery slope toward pedophilia.
It's only a slippery slope if your definition of marriage begins and ends with conservative Christianity. I can draw conclusions about the dangers of religion that the devout draw about same-sex marriages: If we give those Christians free rein what's next? Male superiority and female subservience? Oh, wait. That already exists. I blush. I should try to pick a more outlandish example. Sorry.
The reality is that other religions and lifestyles exist. As hard as this concept may be to understand in the state of Georgia, it is nevertheless true. The United States was formed based on free speech and self-determination and the separation of church and state. It wasn't based on the question: "What would Jesus do?" Does everything have to inevitably revolve around Christian ethics? If that's the case, I think we should consider revising our Constitution to better reflect New Testament ethics.
But in the meantime, I think it is fair to say that same-sex unions can't topple an institution that was never firmly grounded. Marriage predates Christianity. Marriage was originally an arrangement devoid of love, a monetary transaction that extended a couple's social network. It was a matter of survival. Women had babies and men foraged for food.
Marriage = Economics, b.c.
If conservatives are upset about sullying the original meaning of marriage let's go back even farther and talk about ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. Let's talk about dowries, about transferring property right between father and husband. Let's talk about the husband's surname as a cattle brand. The definition of marriage as a heterosexual union was only recently adopted by the Church as a holy union between 'man and wife'. And this is only a single chapter in a long history of marital 'bliss'.
If the concern is that we satisfy the "majority's conscience," despite a vocal minority, this argument isn't convincing. Women couldn't own property or vote when they were a minority voice, does this make it right? (Do I need to mention slavery, too?)
Church and state were separated for a reason: to respect all religions and lifestyles, not just the dominant one. Same-sex couples should be afforded the legal and financial benefits equally under the law, not to mention the emotional rewards of being recognized and affirmed as equally valued and contributing members of a society that they helped create.
"1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law " ("Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law,' Copyright 1994-1999..
Apparently the word already has a legal definition and can't be altered to include unions between two people of the same sex.
I wonder what the compelling reason would be for two people of the same sex who would want to use a label that will incorrectly define their relationship/contract?
Yes, that was the word I was looking for. Hijackers these days have a habit of destroying whatever they hijack. Cars, planes, etc. Methinks the real agenda of these latter-day hijackers is to destroy the institution of marriage -- probablly the only institution still standing that thwarts their attempt to achieve full parity.
Well, of course. They must do that in order to fulfill the requirements of the law, which is to determine guilt or innocence and provide for punishment for offenders. Isn't that promoting the idea that there is a right and wrong, and that there is accountability for doing wrong? I believe that was my point. Do you disagree with that?
What this is really about is that unfortunate state of affairs where the federal government has stuck their camel noses into the societal tent. In an effort to "recognize the importance of marriage", they treat married persons differently than single citizens. Different taxes, different rights and responsibilities (especially regarding heathcare decisions and coverage), and different laws (until SCOTUS's recent ham-handed blurring of the nation's laws) place marrieds apart from singles. THIS is what they want. THIS is the goal of the "gay marriage" lobby. As a radical Constitutionist, I am not opposed to gay persons having the same benefits of married couples. I'm against the government treating any citizens differently based upon their familial choices. I don't think anyone should be treated differently simply based upon their marital status.
However, since we conservatives have decided that it makes sense to reward stable long-term relationships with certain changes in "The Rules", then those who choose long-term stable relationships with persons of the same gender should get equal treatment. Reserving these changes exclusively for those who make the choices that government demands they make is not a proper role of a fair and equuitable government.
While homosexuality has never been a foundation for any successful society, and few have recognized it in any positive manner (and I would defer to 10,000 of social history), what government decides to do for straight couples, it should do for gay couples. Count my radical right-wing whacko vote for keeping the federal government out of ALL of our social choices, be they traditional or exemplary of a San Francisco freak-fest.
(However, calling it "marriage" is an unnecessary and intentional attack upon a religious institution, and I would be one of the first to vehemently oppose any state recognition of gay relations by this title. Not only is it a blatant violation of chuch-state separation, but it is a cruel political attack upon the Religious Right.)
And did you notice that the second definition related to the word, 'marriage,' as already defined in definition one, which was very specific?
I can't address the other points in your post, as I don't believe anyone can change the definition of the word, marriage, without violating the copyright.
Do you have an objection against using a different word to describe homosexual contracts?
It is simply an attack on 5,000 years of western history and religion. All individuals should have the right to do with their property (including their physical form) as they wish. But what the homos are doing is attacking the very basis in what I believe and insulting thousands of years of my cultural history. In the past I would support gays for their rights, now I just think they're self-serving, pig-headed beast, that have utterly given up on who and what they were. And since they have adopted a pointless life without any spiritual meaning, they are able to recognize the truth in the male/female/heterosexual bond and it's ability to reach a spiritual plane equivalent to Nirvana here on Earth and beyond.
Homosexuality is purgatory on Earth, it has no truth only a self collapsing inner struggle that ultimately ends in with dissatisfaction, disease, psychosis, death, and guilt.
So, the gays want to destroy or try and pull down, what is sacred, what is pure, so they can defecate on it and feel like they've achieved some form of spiritually equivalent playing field as the rest of the world. However, even if they achieve this, their lives will continue to be a vapid excuse for existence because their lives are based on the collapsed blackened husk of mendacity.
The point is words can and do have more than one meaning and do evolve over time. If you mentioned you were having problems with your mouse, I'd think you were talking about a computer peripheral. Thirty years ago, someone might think your rodent was ill. I don't understand your comment about copyright. Do you call your mouse a point and click peripheral since the definition of mouse is already taken?
Do you have an objection against using a different word to describe homosexual contracts?
Are you suggesting we reinstate "Separate But Equal" again? Plessy v. Ferguson might cause some problems with that. Don't you think we've learned something from past civil rights issues?
Here's what I see as a few problems with playing definitional semantics... Where does it stop? Assume we use the term civil unions. Will this be restricted to same-sex couples or can opposite-sex couples choose this option as well? What do you call the spouses in this arrangement? Can you even use the term spouse? What about the children in these relationships? Will they be sons and daughters or male/female children of a civil union? Extend this on to other relationships such as aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Where's the stopping point? Don't you think the whole idea of using separate definitions is stigmatizing to those involved?
Can you imagine hearing a "mother of a same-sex partner in a civil union" introduce her "female child of her daughter's same-sex partner in a civil union"? Most folks won't bother with such nonsense and use traditional terms.
You've posted this several times now, without expounding whatsoever about what your thought process behind it is. A marriage certificate does not equal a birth certificate, so I assume you're trying to draw some parallels. If you want this to be considered, you might want to share with teh rest of us how you arrive at this conclusion.
Consult your bible - Jacob married two sisters, Rachel & Leah.
Yes they can and do in the social sphere. No problem. But in contract law, there is no ambiguity, Hence the need for a legal dictionary, which preserves the standard. How do you propose to get around the copyright?
I see no difference between gays wanting to use the word, 'marriage,' to define a contractual union between two members of the same sex and six heteros wanting to use the word, 'marriage,' to define a group union, where all men and women have equal access to each other. Yes, good question. Where do you draw the line? If the definition can be altered to include same sex unions, why not use the word, 'marriage' to define a union between a human and a goat -- or even a human and a whale? Do you see how wide the doorway is going to get once the gate is torn off its hinges?
"Are you suggesting we reinstate "Separate But Equal" again? "
Bananas are not equal to oranges, but they are both fruits. Yes, labels are needed, and there should be no ambiguity -- and 'civil rights' cannot overturn centuries of legal definitions. Why would a lemon want to call itself a peach?
"Can you even use the term spouse?"
Yes you can, but the court can't if they are referring to partners in a same-sex union. The word refers to the man or woman in a 'marriage.'
"Don't you think the whole idea of using separate definitions is stigmatizing to those involved?"
Nope! Why shouldn't a lemon be proud that it's a lemon?
"Most folks won't bother with such nonsense and use traditional terms."
You're probably right. There are no laws against that, except when dealing with legal matters. Free speech is protected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.