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.
.... Laws against gay marriage ....There are no laws against gay marriage
There are laws that define what a marriage is, and what rights and privileges are granted to a married couple. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you don't want to have that, don't get married.
As I said, an analogous law concerning bah mitzvahs, if you want to construct such an analogy, would be a law that required bah mitzvahs to be performed for anyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, and a that required the privileges and benefits of bah mitzvahs to be conferred on anyone, not just on those who believe in the Jewish faith.
Maybe you have an aversion to logic, or maybe just to the obvious, but if the law defines marriage in a way that precludes gay marriage, there is a law against gay marriage.
I'm simply bewildered that that even needs to be explained.
But I will opine that this whole 'gay' agenda sounds to me like a strange doctrine designed to allow man to escape the guilt and penalty of sin. Who needs forgiveness and atonement by God if the supreme court can wipe away the penalty with the stroke of the pen without shedding a drop of blood?
Will the court re-write the laws again, as it did in Texas recently? I suppose it will. The slope is very slippery and is imbedded with all manner of stepping stones on the way up that will become stumbling blocks and cause many to charge head-first into hell on the way down.
The 'Gem of the Ocean' is beginning to look more like the busted shards of an empty beer bottle.
Maybe you have an aversion to logic, or maybe just to the obvious, but if the law defines marriage in a way that precludes gay marriage, there is a law against gay marriage.You are the one with logic problems.
Following your logic, are you saying that there is a law against me collecting veterans benefits?
I've never served in the military, and I'm probably to old to serve now. Since the law defines veterans in a way that precludes me from being a veteran, there is a law against me collecting veterans benefits. That's not fair. We should change the law so that anyone can be a veteran, regardless of military service.
There is no reason that gays can't get married. However, if it isn't a man and a woman, it's not a marriage. How difficult is that to understand?
Its the same process of destroying marriage. THe more the defintion of marriage is watered down, the less meaning it has. By example, if you have a glass of wine and start watering it down at some point it no longer exists, it becomes water for all intents and purposes.
If so, your issue is with the judge and the legal use of restraining orders. I'm personally hard pressed to see how someone could get such a restraining order issued as you suggest. Therefore, your example to me is pure and simple bull$hit.
If people saw on television two men pounding each other in the butt, the public view of fags would radically change to the negative.
Charming.
My. Such ignorance.
Me too. The hysteria about gay marriage is wholly based on the false dichotomy that either marriage is preserved as it is today or the entire institution is rendered meaningless. I don't think that's the case.
If marriage was extended to gays (which I'm not in favor of, BTW) the institution would simply encompass another 3% of the population with little noticeable effect on anyone other than gays themselves.
The SCOTUS cannot wipe away God's penalty.
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.