Recently, the New York State Assembly narrowly passed legislation favoring same-sex marriages, despite the fact that a federal statute (Defense of Marriage Act) legally defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman. Proponents of this measure have argued that it’s about equality, civil-rights, justice and human-rights for all; but is it really? To me, the same-sex marriage debate is ostensibly an attempt by advocates to redefine traditional marriage, which for eons in civil society, has been in essence: quasi-religious ceremonial arrangements/agreements between men and women; which society, culture, religion and government, sanctioned, blessed, approved, encouraged, formalized, legalized and such; for myriad positive and sensible reasons.

Traditional marriage confers certain cultural, social, religious, economic, legal and other benefits that those unmarried couldn’t accrue. Proponents enumerate over two hundred such benefits in contemporary American society. They further say therein lies the inequality. They also say that allowing for same-sex marriage will address these inequities, since those who are gender-barred from traditional marriage cannot enjoy some of these benefits. Herein lays the speciousness behind the “equality” argument of same-sex marriage proponents.

When it is suggested that their just concerns about the protections of “gays” in long-term relationships should be extended to unmarried “straights” similarly situated (especially the elderly), proponents display no solidarity. They also trivialize/minimize both the religious and civil/social concerns of those who suggest that re-defining marriage will open up a Pandora’s Box.

Marriage has always been proscribed; there have always been gender and age pre-requisites, but no “single” person is prohibited from marriage: it’s just that their spouse must be of the opposite sex. This is the dictate that proponents want to eliminate. When adversaries suggest that society eliminate marriage altogether-since no one will have any added codified civic benefit over any other-given that we would all be unmarried- proponents recoil. Further; when “civil-union” laws are suggested as a way of minimizing the disparities, proponents suggest that such laws don’t go far enough.

Look, equality has always been an abstract concept; I can even agree that it is a viable social goal. It’s just that trying to move from abstraction to reification is rather complicated for the most part. Reality shows that both nature and society, endow certain benefits in unequal ways, based on speciation, age, gender, race, physique, ethnicity, lineage, economics, geography and other factors (some highly superficial). Some things are inevitable; some things are irreversible; other things even seem to be unfair: that’s the nature of life.

If marriages were to be re-defined for the reasons being advanced, then on what moral or legal basis do we prevent a man from marrying his son or daughter? Or even a woman from doing likewise? Or further yet, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces from marrying each other for that matter? Further; on what moral, philosophical or legal grounds, do we stop polygamists from marrying more than one person (especially of different sexes)? I could come up with some real absurdities if I continued to explore these angles; but proponents have evaded these questions like an STD; they constantly avoid the Pandora’s Box issue hoping that it will go away; but these concerns are real.

Marriage will always have limits and proponents for same-sex marriage know this; it’s just that they want to re-design what these limits should be and then shove those new designs down the rest of our throats. You cannot accept that there are limits to marriage, but then grovel when the limits set aren’t the ones you want to impose; that’s not justice: that’s convenience.

For those who see homosexuality and its variations as life-style choices (especially those who are religious), the right to resist marriage being redefined is as sacred as the right of gays to push for changes in the definition; this is what true democracy is about. Proponents seem to miss this glaring point when they attack adversaries as being homophobic; it’s one of their many tactical flaws.

Stay tuned-in folks; I do have more to say on this issue.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |