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.
As for men marrying men, heterosexual men can't marry men either. So, the law seems completely fair on this issue.
Wow, it only required getting to the second sentence to jump into the low end of the feminazi intellectual pool. I can only guess that since marriage is based on male property rights and commerce those countries / cultures that do not recongize property rights don't have married people?
Look at # 39 or click on my name for my FR homepage...
I want to cram the "separation of church and state" argument right back down the Leftists throats...
Wow, that's some concession. And proponents of gay marriage are willing to concede that heterosexuals have every right to marry someone of the same sex. Is that of any consequence to you? If not, the point is moot. Just as it's moot (not to mention transparently disingenuous) to say that homosexuals may marry someone of the opposite sex.
Suddenly, one of them takes ill with leukemia.
Suddenly, the judgmental parents of the ill person show up, and prohibit any contact from their child's life partner, and take out a restraining order.
What legal recourse does that person have?
In most statest, a "living will" and some releases on file with your personal physician(s) will completely handle this situation. If the two people in question are indeed that committed to each other, they would probably take the time and effort to make the appropriate arrangements beforehand. If there is serious mistrust between the individual who becomes ill and the "judgmental parents," it's often possible to keep the parents out of the medical decision making process and delegate those decisions entirelly to your "life partner" or your physician or other person(s) of your choosing.
In short, your example is an extremely weak case for marriage between gay persons of the same sex. The laws and procedures on the books already in most states will handle this tragic situation.
If we passed a law prohibiting bar mitzvahs, would that be discriminatory? It would preclude Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all from celebrating a bar mitzvah. That law seems completely fair according to your reasoning.
You might have better luck with an argument that's not completely circular logic.
Perhaps it's you who aren't so familiar with circular logic if you can't see it.
You're arguing that gays can't get married, ostensibly because the law only allows marriage between a man and a woman.
Well, if the law is changed to allow marriage between two people of the same sex they could.
Well, but the law doesn't say that.
Yes, I know but it could.
But marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Yes, but... nevermind.
Circular logic.
Exactly!
You're not about to address the analogy, are you?I'm sorry. I see no analogy.
Your hypothetical law prohibiting bah mitzvahs is a blatantly unconstitutional law against one particular religious ritual that is performed by members of one particular religion.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The state confers certain rights and privileges on such a union. If you want those rights and privileges, find someone you can form such a union with and you will qualify for those rights and privileges. There is no requirement for people to get married. Many people live their entire lives and don't get married. You don't have a "right" to a marriage. If you wish to have a marriage, the rules and requirements are quite simple. If you don't want to follow those rules and requirements, don't get married. What's so hard about that?
An analogy to this would be if we had a law protecting Muslims and Catholics and other non-Jews that said that everyone is eligible for a bah mitzvah, and they don't have to observe any part of the Jewish faith to have a bah mitzvah and to get all the privileges and benefits that go with a bah mitzvah.
Suddenly, one of them takes ill with leukemia.
Suddenly, the judgmental parents of the ill person show up, and prohibit any contact from their child's life partner, and take out a restraining order.
What legal recourse does that person have?
None whatsoever.
Is that right? Is that fair?
Yep. Fact is, a person's lover is not entitled to anything unless that person specifically includes that lover.
For example, unless Joe provides a will that comes right out and says my lover John or Jill gets this, John or Jill, by law, gets nothing. And that is the way it should be.
And by the way, spare us this "life partner" crap. It is boyfriend, girlfriend or lover. When you marry, it is husband or wife. End of discussion.
Willfully blind. Try pondering this phrase: Disparate impact.
A law against bar mitzvahs has a disparate impact against Jews since ostensibly they're the only ones wishing to participate in a bar mitzvah. Laws against gay marriage have a disparate impact against gays since ostensibly they're the only ones who would wish to enter a gay marriage.
Just FYI, I'm not in favor of gay marriage. But I'm not about to intransigently cling to ridiculous sophistry to make my case against it. I think there are better arguments than speciously (and flippantly in my opinion) offering that gays can simply marry someone of the opposite sex.
That does nothing to lend you credibility. It only makes you look like a domineering curmudgeon.
Bigamy? Adult-child unions? I'm not being facetious.
Ever hear of the Mormon Church? Biggest misogynist sect to ever be created. Reading the Book Of Mormon is like listening to Cheech and Chong while YOU'RE stoned. It would be hilarious if it wasn't taken as "truth" by so many. That is something of which to be frightened. Someday the Hispanics and their breeding program and the Mormans and their breeding program will clash (I think it will be around 2076). I am happy I won't be there for that.
Conservatives fear a deterioration of their traditional values and a precipitous decay of morals that will inevitably plummet down the slippery slope toward pedophilia.
That slippery slope has been traversed. I don't have the numbers handy, but (Catholic Priest jokes aside), most pedophelia is already perpetrated by gays.
Church and state were separated for a reason: to respect all religions and lifestyles, not just the dominant one.
This is, if course, the big weakness in the entire article -- and as a result the entire argument falls. If I claim to be a Satan Worshipper, that is OK. If I claim to be a Satan Worshipper that requires a live sarifice (Animal=misdemeanor, Human=Felony) this arguments says, "that is OK."
Respect does not equal subsidy (which is what they want). They can do whatever they want. I hope the gay community is willing to do without my enforced subsidy of the punblic health menace of AIDS, which is, for the most part, a lifestyle disease bred in their community.
What a bunch of idiots we are if we let 6% (that is the accurate number -- not 10% like their PR says) cost us billions in $$ and God knows how much political capital and energy.
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.