"The debate over whether homosexual couples should be allowed to legally 'marry' is not about rights, equality, or discrimination, despite the often heated rhetoric to that effect. Still less is it about the allocation of an entitlement package of legal rights and financial benefits. Instead, this is a question of definition--how do we define the social institution we call marriage? To answer that we must ask, What is the public purpose of marriage?
Please note that I said the public purpose of marriage. The private purposes for which people enter into marriage may be as diverse as the people themselves. Homosexual activists sometimes argue that they want to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals do--out of a desire for love and companionship.
But I ask you--are interpersonal love and companionship really the business of government? Would we even tolerate the government issuing licenses and regulating entry and exit into relationships whose only or even principal purpose is emotional attachment? I submit to you that the answer is no."
Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council
The Connecticut state Judiciary Committee has a very different view, as do many of our state senators. State Rep. Toni Walker's explanation of the state's interest in recognizing same-sex marriage, "I love my friends and I want my friends to love who they want to love." (Feb 23rd, Judiciary Committee deliberations) I guess representatives in Connecticut are not elected to represent the state's interest but their friends'.
State senator Thomas J. Herlihy answered our letter to him, "This is a matter of civil rights, and everyone should have the right to share their lives with the person they love whether that love is between two men or two women." This is equally silly. Civil union legislation is not about anti-sodomy laws nor about restrictions on cohabitation. It is about conferring the state of Connecticut's endorsement on this form of love. It is about conferring benefits, social protections and priviledged status on a relationship.
If it really is a matter of rights, anyone who loves has the right to have the state recognize that love, then what right does the state have to forbid incest or polygamy or place age restrictions on marriage? Or does the state then claim the ability to discern true love from deluded love? And, how does it do that? Does the state use the DSM IV as its guide? Does the DSM IV then become a legislative document?
4 comments:
If it really is a matter of rights, anyone who loves has the right to have the state recognize that love, then what right does the state have to forbid incest or polygamy or place age restrictions on marriage?
You can't be serious.
Age restrictions are based on age of consent. No brainer. Polygamy--well, you know. That whole nasty abuse of women thing.
But please explain what a relationship between consenting adults has in common with incest? I can't wait to hear your explanation. What do two consenting adults have in common with the parental sexaul abuse of a child?
PLEASE clear this one up for me. Can't WAIT. On the one hand: two consenting adults. On the other: parental sexual abuse of a child.
Do tell.
Incest is not the same as "parental sexual abuse." Adult siblings, for example, cannot marry each other despite their protestations of love. Connecticut has laws forbidding marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity. These may be consenting adults. The question then is on what basis does Connecticut prohibit these marriages?
My mistake. Yes, incest can be between consenting adults.
But do you REALLY not know why the state can forbid it? I don't believe you.
Hint: even a state that allows gay marriage can forbid it between siblings.
But what has that to do with a relationship between (non-related) consenting adults?
It means that something besides Love Makes a Family.
Post a Comment