With Same-sex marriage, anger is not an argument
Calvin Freiburger
Issue date: 11/20/08 Section: Opinion
In his recent article, Jake Morgan expressed concern that "frighteningly, many members of the Hillsdale campus, supposedly a bastion of individual liberty, backed these detestable amendments" to protect marriage in California, Florida and Arizona. I'm sure many Hillsdaleians, myself included, are veterans of marriage battles in our respective home states.
We've seen this shtick before, and it'll take more than invective to dissuade, shame or otherwise intimidate us from our convictions (note the irony of bemoaning self-righteousness while calling one's opponents Klansmen).
Admittedly, quoting Pope John Paul II to support same-sex marriage is new. Yes, that would be the same John Paul who adamantly opposed it, warning that the family "must never be undermined by laws based on a narrow and unnatural vision of man."
Even Mr. Morgan's quote about the "highest personal order" (from the pontiff's 1993 book Love and Responsibility, page 226) was specifically referencing the procreative union between man and woman.
Emotionalism aside, the case for preserving marriage involves two questions: Does it deny rights to homosexuals, and what purpose does it serve?
To the first we can answer a resounding no. Visitation rights, domestic violence protection, property transfer, etc., are either already possible or easily achievable without creating brand-new relationship statuses. Indeed, "Grand Wizard" James Dobson has long been on the record supporting bills that expand such benefits without redefining family units. (Maybe he needed something to do while his robes were at the dry cleaners?)
Protecting marriage does nothing - nothing - to prevent gays from living together, holding wedding ceremonies, calling themselves "married" or being considered "married" in the eyes of their loved ones, or of a liberal church. (Frankly, it's the vows before God, family and friends that I will find meaningful about my marriage - not the state-issued license.)
We've seen this shtick before, and it'll take more than invective to dissuade, shame or otherwise intimidate us from our convictions (note the irony of bemoaning self-righteousness while calling one's opponents Klansmen).
Admittedly, quoting Pope John Paul II to support same-sex marriage is new. Yes, that would be the same John Paul who adamantly opposed it, warning that the family "must never be undermined by laws based on a narrow and unnatural vision of man."
Even Mr. Morgan's quote about the "highest personal order" (from the pontiff's 1993 book Love and Responsibility, page 226) was specifically referencing the procreative union between man and woman.
Emotionalism aside, the case for preserving marriage involves two questions: Does it deny rights to homosexuals, and what purpose does it serve?
To the first we can answer a resounding no. Visitation rights, domestic violence protection, property transfer, etc., are either already possible or easily achievable without creating brand-new relationship statuses. Indeed, "Grand Wizard" James Dobson has long been on the record supporting bills that expand such benefits without redefining family units. (Maybe he needed something to do while his robes were at the dry cleaners?)
Protecting marriage does nothing - nothing - to prevent gays from living together, holding wedding ceremonies, calling themselves "married" or being considered "married" in the eyes of their loved ones, or of a liberal church. (Frankly, it's the vows before God, family and friends that I will find meaningful about my marriage - not the state-issued license.)
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Skylar Walker
posted 11/24/08 @ 11:09 AM EST
So those tax breaks that heterosexual couples enjoy because of their marriage are accessible to gay couples as well? How's that?
Look, the issue of gay marriage is not at all religious. (Continued…)
Post a Comment