Opinion: Gays and Lesbians Will Make Marriage Stronger By: James Ide Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage. The current divorce rate, and the fact that one-third of child births are to single mothers, are threats, but where are the serious efforts and serious resources, to address such fundamental threats to marriage? Are TV shows such as, "How to Marry a Millionaire" or "Bachelorette," or the 55 hour wedding of Britney Spears threats to the institution of marriage? Society should be concerned with marriage, but their focus should elsewhere, not on gay marriage. Should procreation be the purpose of all wedding vows? Some people intentionally, some without choice, have remained childless. Some chose not to procreate or adopt. Should those with disabilities who are incapable of sexual intercourse be forbidden to marry? Should marriage vows of non-procreative couples be rescinded or annulled because they cannot or do not procreate? If gay marriage were allowed, would it open the door to polygamy or incestuous relationships? No! The reality is that a central tenet of marriage is to promote stability, far more likely in two-way relationships than in multiple relationships. The risk of birth defects in children of close relatives is a powerful reason to prohibit them. Do gay marriages undermine religious institutions? No! Any church, temple, or synagogue is free to perform, recognize, or prohibit such unions. That would not change. Religious institutions are free to make their own restrictions, in the future as well as in the past. Many marriages in the Bible were between one man and several women simultaneously. For the first thousand years of Christianity, the church did not want anything to do with marriage, which was about property, not spirituality. In the United States, until after our Civil War, slaves could not marry anyone—not even each other—because they were property. Interracial marriage was still illegal in some states until 1967. If any religion wants to believe that a marriage should consist only of one male and one female, that is their choice, they are free to make that restriction for themselves, but there is still separation of church and state in this country, and some of us want it to stay that way. The government should not encourage such discrimination. Is there a persuasive positive case for marriage? Yes! Marriage, whatever its imperfections, is a stabilizing structure encouraging commitment, caring and responsibility. Marriage helps connect sex with love and commitment. What rational society would tell 5% of its population that they are banned from such an institution? Is that the same society that blames gay men and lesbian women for promiscuity and then denies them the right to an arrangement that promotes monogamy? Is that logical? Is that Christian? Is that moral? If the love of two people, committing themselves to each other exclusively for the rest of their lives is not worthy of respect, then what is? Gay couples deserve the same respect and dignity accorded heterosexual couples, and equal access to tangible benefits. As long as marriage remains an exclusively heterosexual option, lesbians and gay couples remain second-class citizens denied formal equality. Our government should not encourage such inequality. In the last census, there were 600,000 households that identified themselves as same-sex households and 28% or 168,000 of those were raising their children. There are some 1,138 federal benefits associated with marriage. They include such things as taxes, pensions, inheritance, immigration, health insurance, and services, care decision making, social security, survivor benefits, etc. Gay marriage does not disparage heterosexual marriage, it enhances the institution of marriage.
|
