Talking Points: A Defense of Same-Sex Marriage
What exactly is the intellectual argument against same-sex marriage? Let's take a look at how President Bush articulated – and I use that word loosely – the issue in coming out for a Constitution amendment to ban same-sex marriage:
Bush: "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."
It may be true that the literal “union” of a man and woman is the most enduring human “relationship,” but is “marriage” really the most enduring human “institution”?
But OK, let’s concede simply that marriage is an enduring institution. The reason marriage has endured is that it has been allowed to change. The concept has been refined and redefined over the ages and still has different meanings in different cultures. Among the changes in most cultures, for example, women now have a say in whom they will marry and are no longer considered chattel. Marriage wouldn’t have endured had it not changed over time.
In our culture, we recognize and embrace diversity based on the concept that all persons should be treated equally under the law and that all persons should enjoy the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States. Because of these core beliefs, it is impossible to argue rationally that two persons of the same sex who want to marry should not be allowed to do so in the eyes of the law. The argument seems to be that we shouldn’t allow same-sex marriage because less enlightened polities throughout human recorded history haven’t allowed it either.
Bush: "Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
What this statement has to do with same-sex marriage totally escapes me. The legality of same-sex marriage has absolutely zero bearing on my commitment to love and serve my wife and to raise my children to be respectful members of society.
This sentence is really nothing more than a reflection of the ignorance of and discrimination against homosexuals that is at the root of opposition to same-sex marriage and, for that matter, anything that comes under the rubric of “gay rights.”
The statement clearly implies that, contrary to the commitment of a man and a woman, the commitment of a same-sex couple to love and serve one another would somehow not promote the welfare of their children and would contribute to the instability of society. It’s an ignorant, shameful statement, implying that same-sex couples should not raise children and that a society that allows same-sex couples to marry will somehow become unstable, rather than stronger in its commitment to diversity and freedom.
Bush: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
And, finally, to conclude the President’s ringing defense of marriage, he argues that a society that embraces diversity, equal rights, and personal freedom by extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples will somehow be worse off.
Bush: "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."
It may be true that the literal “union” of a man and woman is the most enduring human “relationship,” but is “marriage” really the most enduring human “institution”?
But OK, let’s concede simply that marriage is an enduring institution. The reason marriage has endured is that it has been allowed to change. The concept has been refined and redefined over the ages and still has different meanings in different cultures. Among the changes in most cultures, for example, women now have a say in whom they will marry and are no longer considered chattel. Marriage wouldn’t have endured had it not changed over time.
In our culture, we recognize and embrace diversity based on the concept that all persons should be treated equally under the law and that all persons should enjoy the same rights and privileges as citizens of the United States. Because of these core beliefs, it is impossible to argue rationally that two persons of the same sex who want to marry should not be allowed to do so in the eyes of the law. The argument seems to be that we shouldn’t allow same-sex marriage because less enlightened polities throughout human recorded history haven’t allowed it either.
Bush: "Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society."
What this statement has to do with same-sex marriage totally escapes me. The legality of same-sex marriage has absolutely zero bearing on my commitment to love and serve my wife and to raise my children to be respectful members of society.
This sentence is really nothing more than a reflection of the ignorance of and discrimination against homosexuals that is at the root of opposition to same-sex marriage and, for that matter, anything that comes under the rubric of “gay rights.”
The statement clearly implies that, contrary to the commitment of a man and a woman, the commitment of a same-sex couple to love and serve one another would somehow not promote the welfare of their children and would contribute to the instability of society. It’s an ignorant, shameful statement, implying that same-sex couples should not raise children and that a society that allows same-sex couples to marry will somehow become unstable, rather than stronger in its commitment to diversity and freedom.
Bush: "Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."
And, finally, to conclude the President’s ringing defense of marriage, he argues that a society that embraces diversity, equal rights, and personal freedom by extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples will somehow be worse off.
posted by JFH @ 7:38 AM
<< Home