". . . marriage is about love, not sex." (Vealitzek)
Sometimes love leads to sex. Among heterosexuals, sex often leads to children.
An institution that stabilizes heterosexual relations gives children a better
chance to grow up to become functional, well-adjusted adults. I'm sure there
are a few homosexual couples who are doing a fine job of raising kids, but
these are seriously exceptional situations. Marriage is about love, sex,
reproduction and children.
It is not a Merit Badge given for the achievement of love and commitment.
It is a relationship that strongly encourages commitment for the sake of
children and thus the strength of society.
". . . if the government is going to be involved in regulating marriage, then it has to treat people equally." (Jennifer Gratz, quoted in Brian Dickerson article)
A long time ago, someone submitted a bill to a state legislature defining the number pi as exactly 3.14. It would make it easier to do the arithmetic. But pi is what it is -- legislation and judicial rulings have no effect on it. Defining homosexual unions as marriages does not make them marriages.
Technically speaking, homosexuals and heterosexuals are already treated equally. Both are allowed only to marry a person of the opposite sex. What homosexuals want is an expanded definition of marriage that would allow marriage of same-sex couples.
The seriously false notion here is that government "has to treat people
equally." Simply not true. Children are not treated as adults. Old, retired
people are not treated as working people. Visitors are not treated as
citizens. There is a lot of complexity here. That is the point. Statements
about "treating people equally" are easy to make, but when "treating people
equally" overthrows thousands of years of human tradition, law, religion,
philosophy, literature, drama, biology, psychology, sociology
and folklore, maybe the government should be more
concerned with respecting difference.
"there is no legitimate, fact-based reason for denying same-sex couples the same recognition in law that is available to opposite-sex couples." (brief submitted to U.S. Court of Appeals by 25 prominent Republicans, including 14 former members of the Michigan Legislature, quoted in Kathleen Gray article)
A huge social revolution like "gay marriage" should not be decided by the kinds of "fact-based" arguments that are allowed in court rooms. A judge can tip the issue either way simply by deciding which "fact-based" arguments are admissible. But the issue is about much more than "facts." It's about tradition, law, religion, etc., etc.
If I were a family judge and a gay couple came before me wanting to adopt or gain custody of a child, I would ask a lot of questions. Is one of the partners related to the child? Has he known the child for a long time? Do they like each other? Have the couple been in a stable relationship for a number of years? Are they adequately employed? Are they truly thinking of the child and not trying to make a political point? Are there good alternatives? Any criminal history? And so on. I would base my decision on all of the specific answers to those questions. It just might be that putting the specific child in the custody of a specific gay couple would, in my best judgment, be in the best interest of the child.
But you really can't draw any broad conclusions based on very specific,
uncommon, highly scrutinized situations. Gay "marriages" are common in Europe.
Twenty years from we might have some sound statistical data about how children
tend to be brought up in a legal environment that treads gay couples as "equal"
to heterosexual couples. We might then have "legitimate, fact-based" reasons for or
against same-sex marriages. We might learn things even more disconcerting to
egalitarians than to traditionalists. Perhaps lesbian couples will do
really well at bringing up children, but gay men will do really poorly.
Or maybe the other way around. Who knows?
"A lot of people are tired of government in their house, in the backyard or in their bedroom." (Rick Johnson, former Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, quoted in Kathleen Gray article)
Actually, it's the other way around. A few people want the weird things they do in the
bedroom to be recognized by the state as Holy Matrimony. Sorry!
"Drolet said either way the court rules, Republicans run the risk of pushback if they openly dismiss same-sex marriage." (Kathleen Gray article)
Right. That's why no current members of the Michigan Legislature
signed the brief.
"They say it's a conservative position to take." (Amanda Lee Myers article)
Translation: We prominent Republicans think the average conservative is so stupid he or she will believe something is conservative just because we prominent folks say it is. It's like the pushback thing. Serious misjudgment.
Addendum, June 29, 2016:
For an interesting take on "gay marriage" and similar issues, see: The Meme War is Real by Aedon Cassiel, Counter-Currents.com, June 23, 2016.
Copyright © 2014, 2016