Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that homosexual couples are legally entitled to marriage under the Massachusetts state constitution. This has fueled the fire into what has become a raging debate in American politics and society.
But when people have the courage to spout the majority point of view and stand up for the traditional idea of marriage, they are deemed extremists and homophobes. Proponents of gay marriage like to consider themselves as defenders of equal rights and their opponents as ignorant bigots.
Those who oppose gay marriage aren’t an extreme minorit, but are what seems to be the “silent” majority. In the summer of 2003, a Harris/CNN/Time poll asked, “Do you think marriage between homosexual men or homosexual women should be recognized by the law?” Sixty percent of respondents answered “no,” with only 33 percent saying “yes.”
Even every Democratic presidential candidate with a fighting chance has come out in opposition to allowing gay marriage.
It is not a debate of gay rights vs. homophobes, but of gay rights vs. maintaining the natural social order. The real debate lies in defining what marriage really is and why it exists.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court deemed marriage an “evolving paradigm,” but in reality it is a fundamental human institution that predates the law. It is an anthropological and societal institution that has remained constant throughout time. There have been some societies and sub-cultures that have attempted to alter it through practices like polygamy but have been unsuccessful at altering the principles of the institution.
That being said, marriage as an institution was severely weakened in the 20th century because of many factors, but much of it can be attributed to the introduction of “no fault” divorce and the sexual revolution. The skyrocketing rate of divorce and out-of-wedlock births has had ripple effects throughout society.
Why should we subject marriage to further damage by undercutting it in the name of equal rights?
Some argue that legalizing gay marriage would strengthen marriage as a whole by allowing all who love each other to have their relationships recognized and approved by the government. But it would no doubt change people’s views and concepts of marriage altering the behavior of married couples.
Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville defines the purpose of marriage well when she says, “Through marriage, our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.”
Marriage has been a cornerstone of prosperous societies throughout history, not because it recognizes the emotional feelings of a couple, but because it has an expressed purpose.
It promotes a intimate bond between a man and woman, but more importantly it fosters a lifestyle where life can be reproduced and values passed down through generations.
Society recognized a long time ago that there were certain things only a father and mother could provide for children. Marriage has been the best way to provide both for children. Children are the biggest victims of the recent deviance from social norms creating broken homes.
Marriage doesn’t exist to gratify one’s feelings or give a societal stamp of approval on a couple’s love. It has always existed to establish a cultural norm in which people can reproduce and extend cultural values throughout the generations.
The fact that some heterosexual couples don’t or can’t reproduce is a mute point. The possibility still remains. There is never a possibility that a gay couple could procreate naturally. The parts simply don’t fit.
The current marriage laws aren’t examples of discrimination. It doesn’t ask for your sexual orientation on the marriage license application. The guidelines are the same for everyone, heterosexual and homosexual. You can’t marry a close family member, a child, a currently married person or more than one person. Never has anybody been able to simply marry a partner who was just willing to get married.
Gay marriage would simply weaken an institution that is already reeling from the damages unleashed upon it during the last century. For our society to survive, the traditional definition of marriage must be upheld.