Dear Editor, As the presidential race heats up, so does the
issue of gay marriage. We hear where various candidates stand, yet
few define it. What is ‘marriage’? Well, California voted that,
whatever it is, it is between a man and woman. New York recently
made gay ‘marriage’ legal.
Defining ‘marriage’ – whether gay or straight is not easy
Dear Editor,
As the presidential race heats up, so does the issue of gay marriage. We hear where various candidates stand, yet few define it. What is ‘marriage’? Well, California voted that, whatever it is, it is between a man and woman. New York recently made gay ‘marriage’ legal.
Although I am not big on the ‘separation of church and state’ stance, which was simply a reference to no state-enforced religion, I’ve got to wonder what the role of government is regarding relationships. There seems to me to be the potential of three major aspects to marriage: relational, religious and legal. Government cannot enforce nor protect the first aspect. The religious aspect of marriage seems to be where some political conservatives deem gay marriage to be unacceptable in society, yet do we want our government enforcing religious views that cannot be determined from nature and nature’s God? It seems to me that the only role government should play in relationships is that of protecting a legal contract between two people. In California, that is a man and a woman. In New York, there’s now a broader realm for that contract. And I agree with Ron Paul’s view that there should not be a once-size-fits-all view of marriage enforced by the federal government.
I would like to delve into the sometimes-touted view that we should uphold marriage between a man and a woman as the cornerstone of society. It is obviously true that a man and woman are necessary for reproduction. So, if one wanted to take the stance that marriage refers to the traditional role of one man and one woman living and working together to raise a family, and that it is a building block to all societies, then why not let each state decide whether they want to have marriage refer to that as their definition? However, that would raise the issue of what to call the relationship between two adults beyond child-bearing years who marry? What do you call a young couple who marries and the woman is infertile or the man sterile? Is it a civil union until they adopt? Then is it called marriage? Should we call all non-child-bearing relationships ‘civil unions’? But then, when gays adopt, do we change their status from civil union to married? You see, it is very difficult to delve into this issue without either an attempt by some to impose top-down religion on the masses – which is what Jefferson did not want, or by expanding the role of government into what constitutes a relationship. Liberty-loving individuals should want neither.
Some may be be stuck back on my reference to a religious view that cannot be determined from nature and nature’s God. Some are quick to describe a gay life as unnatural. Yet, to a gay or lesbian, heterosexuality is unnatural. Again, it is often fear that stems from religion, inexperience, or lack of inclination, which leads us to generalizations that something is unnatural. I don’t eat raw fish and can’t imagine anyone wanting to eat raw fish. To me, I just see Gollum munching down fresh fish. So, you won’t see me at the local sushi restaurant. Yet, it would be silly to really deem it ‘unnatural’ to eat sushi. Fear has been a big player in the gay marriage debate. I know that a heterosexual female could have lesbian neighbors on all sides and still be hard-wired heterosexual. And, as many have experienced, a child raised in a ‘Religious Right’ household, surrounded by anti-gay dogma and traditional marriage touting, can still be gay. Conversely, a gay couple could obviously raise children who are hard-wired heterosexual, or gay.
Oddly enough, often the same people who are offended by a gay couple who have been living together and faithful for a long time are the same ones who condone as ‘marriage’ couples who are married-in-name-only, male-dominated relationships, men in their 70s marrying 20-year-olds, fourth or fifth go-rounds at the altar, etc., as long as it’s male/female it somehow constitutes ‘marriage.’ The term needs defining by those who want to either limit or expand it. For me, it is a big turn-off to hear a candidate simply state they’re ‘against gay marriage’. It begs the question, “What kind of marriage are you for?” “What is your definition of marriage and why do you have a stance on it that is connected to the role of government?” “How is the government gets to monitor relationships?” “What constitutional right does it have to do so?”
There are still hold-outs against the world of psychology that has predominantly found being gay as an inclination from birth, and that is fine. We are all entitled to liberty of opinion and thought. But what may not be fine, is to deny a segment of the population the right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ in the same way that traditional couples (though many not child-bearing, monogamous, nor healthy relationships) have been able to participate in. It seems to me that the role of government should only be to protect a contract between two consenting individuals … that its role should be only in the legal realm, that religious ‘marriages’ should be in the context of church and family, and that relationship is something unenforceable except by the will of the people involved. The words ‘voluntary union’ sums that last thought up nicely. Perhaps we should have ‘civil unions’ to protect contracts between two consenting adults and ‘marriages’ through families, churches, and religious institutions. Thus, those who wanted to legally protect a commitment to each other could do so, and those who wanted a relationship rooted and grounded in a religious environment with friends and family to hold them accountable to their vows, could do so through their organizations. This would yield the free exercise of religion, as well as legal protection for all who wish to pursue happiness in their own way.
I will be watching and listening to candidates address the subject of gay marriage. And it won’t be to hear some easy answer that falls on either side of the fence. It will be to see if they have the ability to define terms and reason – which will be second-nature to a good presidential candidate.
Jan Comstock, Morgan Hill
