To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.
According to one of the No on Prop 107 websites, "What this amendment WILL do, if it passes, is take one group's definition of sin and force it on others through civil laws. The so-called 'marriage protection' amendment is backed by the ultra-conservative Christian group the Center for Arizona Policy. Even within Christianity there is not agreement about the sinfulness of same-sex relationships, and yet this group seeks to define for everyone else in the state of Arizona a narrow and exclusive view of love and the will of God. Efforts and attitudes such as those behind this proposed amendment misrepresent and misuse the Christian faith in particular, and faith traditions overall."
I would like to say this is a strawman argument. I would like to say that the issue is not the sinfulness of homosexual relations. I would also like to say that there is agreement "within Christianity". But it would all fall on deaf ears. Here are the current facts. 1) Most Christians opposed to homosexual marriages are opposed because they think homosexual activities are a sin, not because they see a fundamental difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. 2) There are those who claim to be Christians (and by that I mean I am not prepared to say they are not Christians) who are not convinced that homosexual behavior is a sin. In other words, the opposition statement above is, sadly, accurate.
It is not, on the other hand, an accurate representation of why I intend to vote "Yes" on this amendment to the Constitution. You see, to me it is not a matter of morality, but a matter of definition. To me, the term "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. It is a contradiction in terms. That's because I understand the definition of marriage to be something other than what they do, and by "they" I don't merely mean "homosexuals", but also all of those who are clamoring over "It's sinful and shouldn't be allowed". You see, back in August I explained that the primary purpose of marriage is two-fold: 1) companionship, and 2) procreation. If marriage is defined this way, then it is nonsense to suggest that homosexual unions are marriages, since procreation is not possible. And this goes to the fundamental question. The argument of the homosexual side is "equal protection". "We deserve the same rights as heterosexuals." Yes, they do. The problem is not that they don't deserve the same rights; the problem is that a union of two people of the same sex is not marriage. To make it so is to redefine marriage. In this case, marriage becomes 1) permission to have sex, and 2) societal rights (such as health care, etc.). That is a radical decline in the definition of marriage.
But, look, it's not their fault. (Remember, by "they" I don't mean "homosexuals", but "all who are arguing the question from a morality issue".) We've done this. All of society has done this. We've made too many deviations. Just in the history of the United States, there has been many changes to "marriage". "Plural marriage" has been outlawed. Contraception has been legalized. (I bet most of you didn't know it was once illegal.) Laws prohibiting interracial marriages have been dropped. In terms of societal norms, procreation has been eliminated as a basic function of marriage. It is not uncommon for a couple to marry and plan to never have children and take steps to insure that plan is met. Having allowed all these shifts in the definition of marriage, is it any wonder there is such confusion? I mean, what was the point of prohibiting interracial marriage? How was that relevant to the definition? And why does societal norm get to define "marriage"? But we've arrived here now. And so obscured is the question, that few are even clear on it.
So we're left to argue whether we should allow homosexual marriage based on the morality of the activity rather than the definition of marriage. We are left debating the "Equal Protection" clause of Article XIV of our Bill of Rights rather than the definition of marriage. We are left with "a segment of religion forcing its views on the rest of the country" rather than the plain, straightforward question ... "How is the union of two people of the same gender marriage???" Of course, when I ask it, I'll simply be thought of as a right wing religious homophobe nut job. That's helpful. Dismiss the folks you don't like with sweeping generalizations. That ought to solve the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment