November 19, 2003 5:51 AM

Why Fred Phelps Won’t Be Vacationing In Vermont or Massachusettes

Vatican Fights Gay Marriage

God Hates Fags

Bush Wants Marriage Reserved For Heterosexuals

The Radical Case For Gay Marriage: Why Progressives Must Join This Fight

Beyond Gay Marriage

Massachusetts gay marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

Forty years ago, this country debated the wisdom/inherent evil of interracial marriage. While there are still segments of the population that do not accept the validity of interracial marriage, it is no longer an issue that divides American society. Marriage, in our modern world, has become a constantly evolving concept, to the consternation of some and the joyful acceptance of others.

Will we, forty years from now, look back at the issue of gay marriage and wonder what all the fuss was about? Perhaps. The question, at least from where I sit, seems to revolve around the definition of marriage. It seems clear that marriage in this day and age does not play the same role it may have in the beginning of, and prior to, our nation’s history.

Back in the day, marriage was primarily a way of cementing alliances, producing heirs, and/or securing title to land. Marriage was considered to be permanent, and it consisted of three defining characteristics:

1) Complementarity: The bringing together of opposites, in this case man and woman, each of whom had careful prescribed roles to play in the continuation of the lineage and the administration of the household.
2) Contract: The union of a man and woman was held to be an inviolable commitment before God that could not be torn asunder by Man.
3) Fruitfulness: The union of a man and woman was, at its most basic, a vehicle for propagating the species, for the creation of life that would ensure the continued existence of the lineage.

Today, depending on which side of the moral and philosophical fence you happen to find yourself, these characteristics may or may not be quaint but outdated concepts. If you do not happen to hold these truths to be self-evident, then, what exactly is the argument against gay marriage? That depends on who you happen to be talking to. This is an issue similar to abortion in that there appears to be no tenable middle ground. It is difficult to be ambivalent about the issue of gay marriage, simply because the two sides of the argument are so polarized.

On the one hand, there are those who hold to what they call a “traditional” view of marriage. This view holds that only the union of a man and woman can be recognized before God, and that “man lying with man” or “woman lying with woman” violates not only the laws of God, but also all recognized natural laws. This is not merely a Conservative Christian view point; variations of this argument can also be found in Judaism and Islam as well.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that marriage is, and should be, an ever-evolving institution that changes as our society changes. Why, these folks argue, should marriage continued to be defined by 16th and 17th century mores? Why is it that only the union of a man and a woman can be defined as “marriage”? Does not society have an interest in stable and secure relationships, regardless of the nature? Can people not accept that one definition does NOT fit all?

In my mind, the definition of marriage requires that one question first be resolved: Is moral relativism inherently evil, or is it merely recognition of the changing needs and values of our society? Can we accept the idea that what works for one couple may not for another (Can we live and let live?)? Or do we reject that notion and hold fast to the notion that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman?

I believe that all of us have the right to a stable, happy, and secure relationship- in whatever form that might take. I do not believe that society benefits in the end by denying same-sex couples the benefits of marriage that accrue to men and women in more traditional relationships. What, really, is so wrong with happiness? No, a same-sex marriage may not be something that I would engage in, but does that allow me the right to deny someone who feels differently the benefits and legal rights that I enjoy as part of a “traditional” marriage? I do not believe that moral relativism is in this case an inherent evil, but merely recognition of the diversity of our society.

In the final analysis, what do we as a society gain by denying the right of those engaged in “alternative” lifestyles the right to happiness and stability? I would submit that, in the long run, we will all be poorer if we fail to recognize the ability and, indeed, the right of all Americans to love as they see fit. Love should know no boundaries.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on November 19, 2003 5:51 AM.

Yeah, but he sure talks a good ball game, eh?? was the previous entry in this blog.

Oil means never having to be held accountable is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12