HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 18, 2004 I’ve seen two separate TV interviews with newly “married” gay people. Both interviews ended with one of the “spouses” plaintively asking, “What is it about gay marriage that threatens anyone?” That’s a "When did you stop beating your wife?" question. It hides two questions in one, making it impossible to answer the first differently than the second. Marriage is about the “relationship” between the partners, but it’s also about “family.” Whereas I’m utterly indifferent to their relationship with each other, I oppose what gay marriage implies about family. Not every marriage produces children, but of those that do, the marriage is the foundation for being both spouse and parent. Therefore, what you rule about marriage has deep and lasting repercussions for what it means to be a parent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision about gay marriage simply fails to understand this. Their argument presumes that marriage is solely about the relationship between the spouses. To this court, marriage is one-dimensional. They see no relevant contrast between same-sex spouses and heterosexual spouses, which is true. Since they only recognize the spousal dimension of marriage, they hastily conclude that the marriage as a whole cannot possibly be different. We're not sure whether the court's blinkered vision is intentional or merely shallowness revealed, but the effect is the same. To oppose gay marriage is not to denigrate the relationship between the spouses. It is, however, to stand firmly behind traditional ideas about family. Let's start with the obvious. Society has always placed child-rearing responsibility with the biological parents. If you beget a child, then you're responsible for it, whether you like it or not. We don't care if it's difficult or inconvenient. You beget it, you be raisin' it. The biological parents acquire responsibility merely because they procreated. That's how it always has been, for many good reasons. Gay marriage denies this. Since children don't come from same-sex unions, for gay couples to enjoy equal status as parents, you have to abandon the traditional link between begetting and raising the child. You have to say that it isn't necessary for the biological parent to be responsible for raising the child. If so, on whom does the responsibility fall? The inevitable result is that raising the child becomes voluntary. Is anyone comfortable with the idea that parenting is voluntary? It doesn't matter whether two gays would provide admirable love and affection for the child. It doesn't matter that plenty of heterosexual parents fail in their responsibilities. When you assert that two gays have the same status as biological parents, you can no longer insist that biological parents be responsible for the child merely because of their intercourse. Let’s not kid each other. We all know what would happen. If we make parenting a voluntary choice, the moment the baby becomes inconvenient (i.e., within minutes), it gives cause to break the contract. The whole concept of parental responsibility becomes a merely admirable goal. The, since we don't use government to enforce virtue, we keep government away from enforcing parental responsibility. We can hear it now – “How dare the government tell me who to care for!” The Supreme Court will rule that if the right of privacy means anything, surely it means that individuals are free to love and care for others at their own choice. Meanwhile, the baby needs a change and a feeding. There is another option. We might legally separate family from marriage, so that being a parent has nothing to do with being a spouse. Marriage becomes one thing, family another. You can raise children in or outside marriage, so much that marriage is irrelevant to the matter. The biological parents don't have to live together, or like each other, or ever see each other. A child becomes merely a legal liability shared by two individuals, allowing each individual to pursue whatever spousal relationship they like, regardless of whether it includes the biological partner or not. Children become tax-deductible dependants, but nothing more. Children become the shared property of two legally liable individuals, but there is no presumption that the children belong to any stable social unit under the same roof. The relationship is legally amorphous, and can take any form. Of course, this disembowels any notion of family in the traditional sense, but that's the price. May we see a show of hands for that option? You can entertain gay marriage only if you abandon either the spousal or the parental dimensions of marriage. You can have gay marriage with the spousal dimension alone. You can have gay marriage with the parental dimension alone. However, you can't have gay marriage and simultaneously hold both traditional dimensions of marriage. Those who support gay marriage portray opponents as bigoted bullies. They challenge us to show how gay people's love and devotion are any less valid than heterosexuals are. That's one-half of the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Of course, no one can reasonably deny that gays love and commit as deeply as straights. At that point, gay marriage supporters throw up their hands in exasperation. Then how could one oppose gay marriage? The answer is that there's more to marriage than being a spouse. Then the other half of the "when did you stop beating your wife" question enters: Not every marriage needs children, does it? No, but for those families that do bear children, the role of marriage is critical. Supporters of gay marriage, like the Massachusetts court, have to specifically ignore this to make their argument. To soothe the feelings of childless couples, supporters of gay marriage have to offend the feelings of the vast majority of childbearing parents. I'll speak for myself. I have no desire to prevent domestic partners from visiting hospital bedsides. I oppose all of the abuses gay partners have to endure for being partners. No landlord should bar gay partners from renting an apartment. I frankly don't see why gays can't designate their partners as dependants or beneficiaries. I hate to admit it, but I care about the gay lifestyle as much as I care about turtles' sex lives: I'm utterly uninterested in it. I figure it's none of my business, and I couldn't possibly care less. Nevertheless, I'm a married man, and a father of four children. Please don't ask me to abandon what my marriage and family means, just to pacify gays who feel disgruntled by the traditions that have carried society through thousands of years. ------------ Email KC Mulville: kcmulville@hotmail.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
