Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Immortal Goat
For Shizzle, Dizzle.
|
*chuckles
In other news, I happened to read this related op/ed this morning. I haven't decided what I think yet:
The fact of the matter is that gays and lesbians themselves do not threaten the institution of marriage. They should not be blamed or made scapegoats for the weakening of thefundamental institution of marriage.
Men and women, husbands and wives by the millions, who care more for Mercedes-Benzes and four-car garages than for teaching their children values and helping with their homework, have done a fine job of that, thank you. Live-in heterosexual lovers who want the benefits of marriage without the responsibility or the costs, and who have no more regard for the well-being of children of a former marriage than they do for their boyfriend or girlfriend's Weimaraner, have done more to destroy this vital institution than all the gays and lesbians could ever hope to do even if they tried.
However, the institution of marriage is in danger, and if it goes under, one of the fundamental underpinnings of Western civilization crumbles. How our society responds to demands by gay and lesbian groups that individual homosexual couples be recognized as lawfully married will in fact largely determine whether Western civilization continues to employ the family as one of its fundamental building blocks. Insofar as laws define -- or should define -- all institutions in our society, it ought to be, then, a question of lawful definition we consider.
I believe the issue must be looked at in this light, and from this narrow perspective because we are a nation of laws. Laws are based -- should be based, must be based -- on reason and common sense. Posing the debate in this manner also detaches -- or should detach -- us from the emotion necessarily appended to any discussion of homosexuality or heterosexuality.
If in fact, as it has been so defined since time immemorial, "marriage" as a legal term and concept (which it is) means the "legal union of one man and one woman." If we then were to suddenly decide, because of political pressure, let's say, to "redefine" it to mean the "legal union of any one person with any other person," which is necessarily the manner in which advocates of same-sex marriage would have to do, then we have "redefined" marriage out of existence. It would mean nothing.
It is this slippery slope of open-ended, and therefore necessarily pointless redefining of terms that is the real danger to the legal institution of marriage, if we allow it to mean something other than what it always has meant -- the lawful union of one man and one woman. It would be like all of a sudden deciding to redefine an "automobile" to mean something other than a self-propelled vehicle on four wheels, for example. You could do it -- after all, it's just words -- but obviously the newly defined "thing" wouldn't be an automobile as everyone has always understood it.
If, in fact, it is the goal of homosexual rights advocates to obtain rights and privileges similar to those afforded by our society to men and women seeking a lawfully recognized union, then let's have a debate over that, and let society make its decisions at the state or local government level. But let's not, in the process of addressing one issue, create a monumentally larger one that would necessarily befall us if, in trying to fit a homosexual relationship into a long recognized and historically sound heterosexual relationship. Let's not define "marriage" out of existence in an effort to define whatever parameters society may or may not decide it wants or needs for same-sex relationships. Remember, this is not a zero-sum game.
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Smyrna, was chief sponsor of the "Defense of Marriage Act," which allows states not to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
06.26.03