This is possibly my last posting on subject of same-sex Marriage as I am tired of defending something that many in society no longer feel is worth defending. Still, my ole pal Eugene Robinson in today’s Washington Post argued that the decision by the California Judge was a good one.
What caught my attention today was the following comment to his article.
BlueTwo1 wrote:
The authoritarian, right-wing argument against gay marriage boils down to: "My church says it is a sin. So it should be illegal." Meanwhile, the most authoritarian of religions, Roman Catholicism, is struggling to justify the sinful behavior of its infallible hierarchy with respect to pedophile priests. Protecting the church's reputation was more important than protecting children. So, the church's moral standing regarding homosexuality is gone with the whirlwind. Separation of church and state, a very wise decision by the Founding Fathers, means our elected leaders do not consult with clergy before making law. This displeases some people who now want to strip various provisions out of the Constitution, which they otherwise regard as tantamount to Holy Scripture.
It is incredible that nearly every attack on someone who holds for a more traditional view of marriage always goes for the jugular, calling or insinuating bigotry or religious intolerance.
Below is my response:
@BlueTwo1: Not all of us my friend. My argument rests upon nearly a century of progress in which the focus and intent of marriage and family law has been to protect and encourage families, their creation, protection and nurturing. It has not been about "rights" of individuals.
Here is my problem. If we are re-defining marriage, upon WHAT do we base the new definition? Can't you see that ANY definition now becomes discriminatory to some group. Based on the interpretation of this Judge, at any point now, any group that feels it's civil rights are being violated, can sue to extend marriage rights to them. I mean ANYONE.
So, I go back to my original question. Upon what do we justify THIS new definition of marriage? Why THAT definition? If TWO, why TWO? If non-sibling, Why?
What is the justification for that kind of discrimination. Please don't give me the argument, 'well polygamists are just another form of perpetuating male authority' crap. Attitudes about polygamists today are similar to the attitudes associated with gays 30 years ago. (yeah, yeah don't lecture me about how gay men are different because they don't perpetuate male domination, patriarchal societies) I mean that 30 plus years ago, most people would have considered same-sex marriage unthinkable, now look where we are.
So, I keep coming back to this question. Upon what do you now form the basis of your new definition of marriage? I say that the philosophical underpinnings of this new interpretation makes polygamy and other forms of relationships inevitable.
At that point, marriage becomes meaningless and whatever remaining value and respect for this institution that we have will be gone.
My take, let's end marriage. It no longer contributes any value to the growth and protection of our society. If we want civil partnership rights defined, I am all for civil partnership agreements. But marriage is now the proverbial square peg in a round hole. It has now been convoluted and twisted in order to provide and extend rights in ways that is far from its original intentions.
DON'T GET ME WRONG HERE! I a'int sayin I think two women who love each other should not be extended the equal protection of the law, I'm just saying, by stretching the 'marriage' blanket to these groups, it inevitably will lead to further stretching that will fray the fabric and ultimately weaken and destroy that blanket's ability to provide protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment