All I can say is, about time he finally revealed how he feels. No matter what the motivation was…
Ok, that’s not all I can say.
The political issue of whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed has been raging in the country for quite some time. Current polls seem to put the country at about a 50/50 split, in favor vs against – with the in favors normally coming out slightly ahead.
Personally, I think that all States should recognize same-sex marriage. And I do think it is up to the States and not the Federal Government. Without passing a Constitutional Amendment, marriage is the domain of the State. Let’s be honest here, passing an amendment to guarantee same-sex marriage as a right would be very difficult right now.
But, I think we will get there. The logic in favor of same-sex marriage is so easy for me, I think it is inevitable that every State will eventually recognize it. With people like Obama coming out in support, it becomes only a matter of time. The fight isn’t over yet, and we need to keep pushing, but we can get there.
Anyway, I said the logic for me is easy. Here is that logic…
In order to figure out if same-sex marriage is valid – we need to look at the purpose of marriage. Not the long historical purpose of a man purchasing a wife to bear him children – but, the modern purpose.
There are those that argue that the true purpose of marriage is to create and raise children. Well, let’s test that with a simple thought experiment. If that is the only purpose, then why don’t we pass laws banning the infertile from marrying? I mean, if you can’t have kids – what’s the point? Also, why not pass laws banning single-parenting. Force people who have children to get or stay married? And while we are at it, we should pass a law requiring married couples to have children within a certain time – or their marriage is canceled. If that is truly the purpose of marriage, wouldn’t this be the direction we should be going?
But, it isn’t. I don’t know of any hardened same-sex marriage opposers who would seriously consider banning the infertile from opposite-sex marriage. Obviously, we have a sense that marriage is more than just making kids. Would you even want to marry someone who thought that your only purpose was to produce babies for them?
No, we tend to think of marriage as a joining of two people in love. A partnership of mutual caring and respect that affirms a couple’s resolve to stick by one another and share in life’s experience.
The purpose of marriage is to celebrate this union of two people coming together as one. I tend to get annoyed when people try to use the slippery-slope argument that same-sex marriage will lead to things like human-animal marriage or polygamist marriage. You can’t have a union of two people if one of them isn’t a person. Having more than two people becomes problematic as well, but for other reasons.
So, same-sex couples meet the requirement of two people in love. There is no requirement for the natural ability to produce children. And if same-sex couples want children, they can use the same avenues that the infertile do. That system is already in place.
What about the argument that same-sex marriage degrades the institution of opposite-sex marriage? I don’t see how it can. Two people joining their lives together is the purpose. Not a man and a women. Did allowing opposite-race marriages do anything to same-race marriages? There was a time when people made the same arguments against interracial couples that they make now against same-sex. I don’t recall there being a huge problem with people’s marriages when those laws were struck from the books.
So, why all the uproar? Maybe some people are just afraid that they’ll be left because their spouse really wanted a same-sex partner the whole time. And if that’s the case, wasn’t your marriage a shame from the beginning?