It's great that NY was able to decide that children need a mother and a father, but what about this assertion that:
'"The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples," who must plan more deliberately to raise children, the decision said.'
Are they saying that it is "less unstable" for a child to grow up with a so-called "same-sex" couple because they must plan more deliberately to raise children? It would seem so.
One of our readers has formulated a response to this (in a debate with a friend) and wonders if anyone can help him out with this.
Tom said:
The New York State Supreme Court recently ruled that NY state law does not permit same sex marriage and that banning such marriages is not unconstitutional.
The ruling states that it is better for children to "grow up with both a mother and a father" yet, following the tortured logic behind the Court's decision is somewhat painful. At one point, the court appears concerned with the possibility that married couples might actually procreate:
"Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. (Homosexual couples) . . . do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse . . .
The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples."
The Court takes their unfathomable logic to the conclusion that because homosexual unions produce "more stable relationships," a ban on same sex marriage cannot be struck down. A July 14th Op-Ed piece in the New York
Times (available on-line for a fee here, dubbed this the "Reckless Procreation Model" and went on to assert that the Court was essentially stating that gay marriage could be banned because "homosexuals were too good for marriage."
I would contend that the Court is essentially telling us that since marriage has become "reckless," we should abandon the institution entirely. Since our culture of death has created frivolous marriage, largely by allowing frivolous divorce, the ideal of the institution is hereafter meaningless.
How far we have fallen. Marriage has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and therefore abandoned. If there is a better testimony to Chesterton's assertion that the western world is living off of and using up its Catholic capital, I haven't come across it.
All our concepts of marriage, the virtues we consider normal based on our cultural and religious heritage, make sense in the concept of the definition of marriage - a union between one man and one woman. The concepts of monogamy, fidelity, and even incest (Can a father marry his son?) begin from this core. Our laws against same sex marriage are no more discriminatory than the law against polygamy is unfairly restrictive to some Mormons or, to take it to another level, the law of gravity is unfairly oppressive to obese people.
Same sex marriage is much more an oxymoron than a civil rights issue.
That being said, I ask you to please not group me with those who use this issue as an excuse for bigotry and hatred. At that point, the issue truly does become one of discrimination and civil rights; it becomes a cause I will march for, shoulder to shoulder with all who strive to protect human dignity, including Justices whose logic I find somewhat reckless.
After all, I am called by Christ to love and respect people for the divine creations that they are.
Does anyone have anything to add? Tom is debating this with a friend right now, and wants to know what other points he can make to make his point. Thanks for any Chestertonian help.
Posts
Gilbert Magazine's editorial in the September, 2004 issue, "Let the States Defend True Marriage," would be a great source in this debate. So would the editorial, "'Gay Marriage' is Neither," in the September 2003 issue.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have those issues and, even more important, would you be willing to transcribe them so they can be posted?
I have the Sept. 04 issue. Will transcribe. Where/when/how do you want it?
ReplyDeleteOne facet of this many sided issue is the concept of a marriage license. The first USA marriage licenses granted permission for inter-racial marriage (otherwise illegal). During the 1920's the concept was extended to all marriages. The power to grant or withhold a marriage license is in effect the power to define marriage, isn't it? If the state wants to license marriages between children and adults, people and animals or inanimate objects, or license polygamy, etc etc etc, then there is nothing in principle and only the ballot box in practice to stop these marriages. Eh?
ReplyDelete~ John Peterson
We should be careful to not get lost in the civil definition of marriage. Marriage is a fundamentally religious institution. It is meant to mirror the procreative union of Christ with his Church that will bring about God’s kingdom. It is not my place to impose or the place of our laws to legislate religious doctrine and, certainly, not all see their marriage in such light. Yet, family is the fundamental unit of society and the institution of marriage is necessarily draped with civil law.
ReplyDeleteTo declare unconstitutional the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is nonsensical. I believe the “Gay Marriage is Neither” article Chestertonian refers to stated it this way: It is as if the law of gravity were seen to be unfairly restrictive and unnecessarily burdensome and then declared unconstitutional by a court in, say, Mass or Canada. As thousands chant, “Get you gravity off my levity!” those who believe in traditional physics are labeled as intolerant.
If the issue truly is just about civil law then let us change our civil laws appropriately. We can rewrite the tax code, redefine work benefits, and make allowances for medical decision making. These are issues as vital to spinster sisters living together as they are to the gay community and it is not the place of our civil laws to legislate activities in the bedroom.
To approach this issue by trying to redefine marriage constitutes yet another grave attack on the family.
If the state wants to license marriages between children and adults, people and animals or inanimate objects, or license polygamy, etc etc etc, then there is nothing in principle and only the ballot box in practice to stop these marriages. Eh?
ReplyDeleteGood point John, as usual. You know, it has always bothered me that a priest in a wedding ceremony has to say "By the power invested in me by the state of ____, I now pronounce you man and wife."
Candlestring: maybe Nancy should decide, and thanks for doing that for us! :-)
ReplyDeleteCandle,
ReplyDeleteE-mail it to me once transcribed. I'll post it.
My e-mail is on the left border of the blog.
Thanks.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteprevious comment deleted by me.
ReplyDeleteMarriage isn't exactly a religious institution, so much as something religion has to deal with, like birth or death or war.
ReplyDeleteAll that needs to be pointed out in this debate is that same-sex couples are more unstable, regardless of needing to plan births. Gay men, especially, aren't exactly going to die for the virtue of fidelity--less so than most dogs, from what I've seen. And all the gay men I know are basket cases (I don't know any lesbians, but they seem more stable, but still emotionally disturbed).
Maybe because exclusive homosexuality is a mental illness, arising from excessive attraction to one's own sex (a tiny bit of attraction is normal, apparently) coupled with extreme distaste for the opposite sex. Not "boys are icky" or "I just don't get girls" kind of stuff, but "The thought of making love to a woman makes me physically ill." Oh, yeah, perfectly sane there, Kemosabe. No doubt in my mind or anyone else's.