Two people love each other, derive happiness from being together, and want to raise a family together. They want to join in marriage. Are all unions created equal? Proponents of gay marriage say yes. If marriage has no gender, then the answer would have to be yes. But marriage has always had a gender component. If you remove the gender from marriage, you create a civil union, but you destroy the concept of marriage.
Judges created gay marriage. Popular opinion did not. Nature did not.
Under the prior law, all people were treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. The law did not confer anything which nature did not. And every child at least had the theoretical right to a father and mother.
Under the current state of the law, marriage means a union of two people, not the union of a man and woman. Marriage is neutered.
Those who vote No on Proposition 8 will take gender out of marriage. This will mean that children will not have a legal right to a father and a mother. Children will not be treated equally. Some will get two mothers, some two fathers, and some will get one of each.
Nature never intended that. The law should not be in the position of telling children that they do not have a natural right to be raised by a loving mother and father in a marriage. We live in an imperfect world and situations occur all the time when children must be raised without a mother or father, and are better off than the alternative. But this is the result of problems in our imperfect world--problems which people should work to solve together. Ideally, our laws should not set be designed to create a situation in which a child has no right to be raised by a mother and father.
This does not deny the love that gay partners have for each other, or suggest in any way that they may not make wonderful parents. But to say that this relationship is identical to a traditional gender marriage ignores the reality of gender. Perhaps unfortunately, nature created people with gender. Gender causes lots of blessings and also a few challenges. Judicially declaring marriage to be free of gender may end up causing more problems than it solves.
[Originally posted here.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
See http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1129476/getting_prop_8_straight.html?post=true&cat=17 for a review of the LAW -- not mere opinions -- on Prop. 8.
Thank you for the post Jessie. Since you appeal to the law I hope you will consider that our system of laws if based on natural law. For a good explanation on how SSM relates to natural law I refer you to Reid, Eric, "Assessing and Responding to Same-Sex "Marriage" in Light of Natural Law," Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 3:523-539 (2005).
The SSM issue is not a matter of discrimination, it is a matter of accepting or rejecting the foundation on which our society is based.
I assume then that you also want to end no-fault divorce and end the right of single parents to raise children, if you think having a mother and a father is a "right" of children?
Yes, no-fault divorce should be ended and same-sex marriage is the end of the trend that no-fault divorce began. No-fault divorce and ssm both destroy marriage and undermine the moral fabric of society.
Your second comparison, however, is disengenous and erroneous. SSM and no-fault divorce undermine the institution of marriage. Single parenthood, however, is the result of the destruction of marriage. It does not cause the destruction of marriage. Apples and oranges. Since single parenthood involves a real fundamental right (i.e., parental rights), the government should not terminate the rights of a parent to raise his child.
The logical connection is never there. People argue that children of same-sex couples are being reared in a disadvantaged, dysfunctional family.
Then they leap directly from that argument to "So these children that we believe are ALREADY disadvantaged ought to be FURTHER discriminated against by being denied married parents!"
Never did understand that. Decent people want to support all children equally, and give all children the same rights under the law - regardless of whether you approve of their parents' sexual orientation.
Children of same-sex couples, and LGBT families exist. They have always, will always exist. The only question you get to decide on is: shall the government actively discriminate against these families? People who care about all children will say no: people who hate LGBT people enough to want to attack their children, too, will say yes.
Jesurgislac - No, we don't make that logical leap. Children have a right to be raised by a father and a mother. Every study ever made concludes that the best environment for children is one in which a loving father and mother are raising them.
SSM is detrimental to a child and the government has no place is guaranteeing that a child will never be able to have that right fulfilled. Why would you advocate a policy in which the government harms a child?
Why do gay parents want children? They can't make children. Shouldn't that tip them off that they shouldn't rear someone else's child. Why do gay couples want to deprive a child of his right to a father and mother?
Gay adoption is not about providing a home for a child but more to satisfy the selfishness of the gay couple. It's merely an attempt to legitimize their relationship.
And remind me, this affects the child how? There wouldn't be much discrimination if it was no on prop 8 so the child wouldn't be teased. What other situations will the child get? So what if it's two fathers? Is it better than abusive STRAIGHT parents?
sweetxren - you may want to read my comments above and the post itself and you can also look up any study ever done showing that a father and mother are essential components of a family. It's been that way since the beginning of humankind.
Also, the fact that you ask whether 2 fathers is better than 2 abusive straight parents proves the weakness of your argument. The fact is, 2 gay "parents" will never be the equivalent of heterosexual parents. Another reason why your claim to "equality" is so nonsensical.
Post a Comment