At some point it occurred to ash that the reader would appreciate the text of whatever ash is responding to. Alas, not when this piece was written. Hopefully, she has encompassed the points in the original article thoroughly enough that to provide it would practically be redundant.
The first thing I notice about the Reverend Taylor’s opinion piece is that he is a Baptist minister. Fine. He has as much a right to express his views on politics as any Hollywood actress.
The second thing I notice is that his argument against gay marriage is not based on the Bible in particular, if Judeo-Christian principles in general. Good. He recognizes that the United States is not a theocracy, to the constant consternation of many. Neverthelss, I find he makes a weak case based on specious logic and assertions.
The Reverend sprinkles his article with references to “activist judges,” “millennia,” raising healthy children (including the creation of them), and, though not directly, the “slippery slope.” Excluding a segment of society based on the constraints of a legal contract is neither mean-spirited nor insensitive, he maintains. I beg to differ.
One person’s “activist judge” is another’s judge interpreting existing law through the spectrum of changing times and circumstances. One person observing that the constitution defines marriage as between opposite sexes is countered by another pointing to the equal protection clause. If these rationales cancel each other out (and assume for purposes of this discussion that they do), then one must look further to settle the matter.
A word of caution to the minister, here: Never use “millennia” or “time-honored” or “traditional” to justify your position, lest someone point out that slavery was – and, in some places, is – practiced throughout the ages, and that women won the right to vote some 146 years after the birth of the nation. While framing the debate in terms of morality is on firmer ground, it is still dangerous absent convincing evidence that the morality you cite is absolute. Hence, while slavery, an assault on inherent human dignity, is absolutely wrong, it is less indisputable that women shouldn’t vote because they’re intellectually inferior to men, or that gay marriage is wrong because…well, why is it wrong, exactly?
Which brings me to the children. Ah, yes, always the children. Here is where the Reverend appears to contradict himself. If, as the Reverend notes, the primary function of marriage is commitment, not necessarily the production of children, why does he cite the fact that two people of the same sex cannot procreate? Disregarding the fact that many gay/lesbian families do raise children, what would preclude him from prohibiting marriage between a man and a woman who cannot, or intend not to, reproduce?
As for healthy children, while it is universally accepted that two parents are better than one, there is no consensus that the two must be of the opposite gender.
And as for “not just any commitment qualifies for marriage,” the Reverend inadvertently advances my case. Of course relatives can’t marry, lest their children have pointy heads. Of course more than two people can’t marry, which would violate the concept of equilibrium. Of course there must be an age of consent. Of course animals…animals? That rates no retort. (An oddity here: he mentions the relationship of “friend to friend.” Certainly he is not implying that spouses should not be friends.)The question is how, exactly, does same-sex marriage open the door, or descend the slope, into the examples he gave? The answer is, it doesn’t. The answer is the law can, and does, draw lines.
There is a huge difference between two people marrying and three. There is a difference between two heterosexuals marrying and two homosexuals as well, but it is a distinction with no meaningful difference. While the Reverend frets over “arbitrary” and capricious rulings and the decline of our culture in general, my attention is elsewhere. While he wrote his article urging a stop to the ceremonies in San Francisco and elsewhere, I was watching that assembly line of ceremonies. I was watching those couples gaze into each other’s faces with the same expressions of love as any heterosexual couple, kissing each other with the same passion. But there was a difference between a typical heterosexual ceremony and these. While newlyweds typically feel pure joy, these couples emerged from the courthouse triumphant and relieved, finally granted the rights and privileges they deserved.
As much as this country takes prides in its freedom, often modernity is achieved only through kicking and screaming. Slavery ended through war; women demanded the right to vote; schools were integrated by force; interracial marriage followed judicial intervention. To those who condemn such rulings as “rewriting the law,” I say it’s about time. Where laws are patently antiquated, discriminatory and unequal, they can- and must – be changed.
As I write, President Bush has just called for a Sanctity of Marriage Amendment. My solution to the marriage dilemma is to legalize it, at the federal level. Do it immediately and get it out of the way of real issues. Call it gay marriage, call it civil union, call it anything. To do anything less is not only to deny gays and lesbians their pursuit of happiness, it is to fail to meet our own standards as a civilized and compassionate society.
Having presented my case, I must now call my representative to urge the immediate passage of the Gay Marriage Establishment Amendment – and to call it that.