But polls continue to show strong majorities favoring the retention of marriage as traditionally understood, as a union of one man and one woman for the regeneration of society. Americans should not be forced to have far left-wing secular views imposed on them unwillingly. As I've written about this controversy from here to eternity, I find it a shame to see leftist arguments, which are far from compelling, generally carrying the day in media.
The truth is that entirety of same-sex marriage agenda could be achieved without extending the definition marriage to include loving couples outside of the biologically regenerative conception of the marriage instiution.
Recall, from Susan Shell's argument, "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage:
Most, if not all, of the goals of the gay marriage movement could be satisfied in the absence of gay marriage. Many sorts of individuals, and not just gay couples, might be allowed to form "civil partnerships" dedicated to securing mutual support and other social advantages. If two unmarried, elderly sisters wished to form such a partnership, or two or more friends (regardless of sexual intimacy) wanted to provide mutually for one another "in sickness and in health," society might furnish them a variety of ways of doing so--from enhanced civil contracts to expanded "defined benefit" insurance plans, to new ways of dealing with inheritance. (Though tempting, this is not the place to tackle the issue of polygamy--except to say that this practice might well be disallowed on policy and even more basic constitutional grounds without prejudice to other forms of civil union.) In short, gay couples and those who are not sexually intimate should be permitted to take legally supported vows of mutual loyalty and support. Such partnerships would differ from marriage in that only marriage automatically entails joint parental responsibility for any children generated by the woman, until and unless the paternity of another man is positively established.
As for the having and raising of children--this, too, can be provided for and supported short of marriage. If two siblings need not "marry" in order to adopt a child together, neither need two friends, whether or not they are sexually intimate. Civil unions might be formed in ways that especially address the needs of such children. The cases of gay men who inseminate a willing surrogate mother, or lesbians who naturally conceive and wish to designate their partner as the child's other parent, can also be legally accommodated short of marriage, strictly understood, on the analogy of adoption by step-parents and/or other relatives. As in all cases of adoption (as opposed to natural parenthood, where the fitness of the parent is assumed until proven otherwise), the primary question is the welfare of the child, not the psychic needs and wants of its would-be parents.
What gays have a right to expect when seeking to adopt children is that their homosexual relationship as such not be held against them when the state weighs their claim to parental fitness. A liberal approach takes moral condemnation of homosexuality out of the public sphere. Individuals remain free, according to the dictates of their religion or conscience, to abhor gay relations. But they may not publicly impose that view on others. The civic dignity that gays may properly claim includes the right not to be held publicly hostage to sectarian views they do not share.
That liberal sword cuts both ways, however: American citizens should not have the sectarian beliefs of gay-marriage advocates imposed on them unwillingly. If proponents of gay marriage seek certain privileges of marriage, such as legal support for mutual aid and childbearing, there may well be no liberal reason to deny it to them. But if they also seek positive public celebration of homosexuality as such, then that desire must be disappointed. The requirement that homosexual attachments be publicly recognized as no different from, and equally necessary to society as, heterosexual attachments is a fundamentally illiberal demand. Gays cannot be guaranteed all of the experiences open to heterosexuals any more than tall people can be guaranteed all of the experiences open to short people. Least of all can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of human sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares. To insist otherwise is not only psychologically and culturally implausible; it imposes a sectarian moral view on fellow citizens who disagree and who may hold moral beliefs that are diametrically opposed to it.
The deeper phenomenal differences between heterosexual and homosexual relations are hard to specify precisely. Still, these differences seem sufficiently clear to prohibit gay marriage without denying gays equal protection under the laws. Gay relations bear a less direct relation to the generative act in its full psychological and cultural complexity than relations between heterosexual partners, even when age, individual preference, or medical anomaly impede fertility. Gay relations have a plasticity of form, an independence from natural generation, for which they are sometimes praised, but which, in any case, also differentiates them from their heterosexual counterparts. No heterosexual couples have such freedom from the facts of generation, which they can limit and control in a variety of ways but can never altogether ignore. Intimate heterosexual partners realize that they might generate a child together, or might once have done so. This colors and shapes the nature of their union in ways that homosexual love can imitate, and possibly even transcend, but cannot share in fully.
1 comments:
Property and contract law have been more than sufficient to allow persons to associate and share as they choose. The gay victimization was originally trumped up because gay relationships were outside the definition of "dependent" for insurance and employment benefits (which preferred and supported the nuclear family child-rearing arrangement -- non-gay relationships like adult sibling households and religious orders were other lifestyle arrangements outside the nuclear family preference).
.
Over time, the benefits distinction has narrowed and one would have expected the gay community to be mollified - yet we get the opposite. The victimization du jour is the perceived esteem deficit; the historic understanding on marriage law is somehow an affront to gays because the bonds they may declare for each other couldn't be the bond carved out in the law for marriage. Even though the law allows persons to privately contract with each other to the full extent of their needs and unique circumstances, gays demand that the marriage law be made nonsensical to indulge their esteem deficit -- and they will thuggishly abuse the rights of others to see their views imposed by law.
.
These events beg an important question: why is it so easy for politicians to repeatedly denigrate employers, corporations, white males, Christians, the military, taxpayers, conservatives, SUV owners, and now breeders -- yet they can't utter a simple "no" on any matter involving the gay community. We used to be a great country, now we constantly sacrifice the core for the whims of the fringe.
Post a Comment