No, the Buffalo News hasn’t printed my letter (below) yet. Looks like they have pushed this one ahead of it: Buffalo News – Ability to procreate sets marriage apart. But of course: it’s a baby license.
Update: Meanwhile, other New Yorkers are moving forward. The mayor of New Paltz has started marrying gay couples. (Via Crooked.)
No related posts.
Strange to say, I’d have more respect for proposals for laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage if they’d actually codify the baby license argument– and, in the interests of Protecting The Children, get rid of divorce. A constitutional amendment saying that marriage was an unbreakable union between a man and a woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children would have a refreshing directness and clarity about it.
I’m not sure if that is a “modest proposal” or not :). Part of me wants to know why the state is in the business of sanctioning marriage in the first place. If it really is a religious act, then the state should be out of it. If it’s public policy, then it seems to me that the state should encourage the kind of social structure that committed relationships bring, regardless of who those committed individuals are.
And as for the slippery slope, frankly I don’t care if three people want to get married. I live next door to a committed lesbian triple in Seattle, and they seemed happy and well-adjusted. Why should they be punished in terms of benefits because they choose polyamoury.
The problem, of course, is that it is legislated morality. Not to say all legislation isn’t moral, of course. I’m sure there is a small minority who think that murder is nothing more than a good time. But as social policy, this flies in the face of “the most good for the most people.” Unless one believes that 9/11 really was punishment brought upon us by our acceptance of homosexuality–and it shocks me that some people do believe that in this country–then the idea of further illegalizing gay marriage is simply the wish of the majority (and I still find it difficult to believe they are the majority) imposing their will on the minority.
In other words, democracy (in the non-radical winner-takes-all form) sucks. And no, I’m not kidding. And religion, especially when it reinforces age-old oppression, also sucks. That’s my fascist, atheist thought of the evening. Good night.
getting rid of divorce isn’t going to protect children. divorce of parents can be a safety valve for children if the marriage has become problematic.
Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.