it just doesn’t end, does it?
So I realize I’m a little late on this, but I was reading Savage Love this morning, and I once again came accross this phrase “all too often casual or temporary,” which seems to be popping up a lot lately. For those who are as poorly informed as I was, this phrase is from a New York Court of Appeals decision (download here in pdf format) ruling against gay marriage. To quote the courts:
“Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement–in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits–to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.”
Now, obviously, the phrase in question is causing a lot of controversy among supporters of gay marriage, and for good reason. For the longest time, we’ve been told that gay parents are irresponsible and could not be trusted to take care of children, which is why they haven’t been allowed to marry. Now, apparently, they are too responsible to have children. Allow me to debunk this ridiculous statement with three simple points:
1) Allowing gay marriage does not disallow straight marriage, nor any of its attendant benefits.
2) Thus, casual heterosexual relationships that resulted in children would still be able to be lured into marriage by the offer of its many benefits.
3) Children are not a necessary outcome of marriage. If the discussion were on adoption, this reasoning may have been appropriate. As we are dealing with marriage only, children are an ancillary concern and can not, logically, be the basis for the decision.
I am, frankly, amazed that a group of intelligent adults could come up with such a logically flawed argument. Obviously, I don’t think there are any good arguments against gay marriage, but this one is so weak, I truly am aghast that it has come from the highest court in New York.
On the other hand, I suppose this could be a good sign. If this is the only argument left in the opposition’s arsenal that has any credibility, it can’t be long before this barely coherent, poorly realized opinion is thrown out, as well. While the decision does mention the so-called “traditional” definition of marriage, that is not part of the two-pronged reasoning it gives for denying homosexual people the right to marry.
If this truly indicates that the whole “traditional definition of marriage” argument is finally and rightfully considered complete bunk, then I think this decision could indicate an incremental step forward. It will only take about 10,000 more steps like this one before everyone is finally treated equally.
science triumphs again! almost.
Today’s op-ed piece in the New York Times makes a good point about the whole stem cell debate, namely that is no different from the many, many times that scientific breakthroughs have challenged church teachings in the past. As Ms. Blum points out, science eventually won out in these debates as the more rational decision. What she fails to mention, however, is whether the Church had the power to actually stop what it saw as immoral scientific experiments. Based on the example of Edward Jenner, it sounds as though their only weapon was censure.
Eventually, of course, even the Church came to accept innoculations as useful and necessary. But we aren’t dealing with the Church in this instance, at least not directly. Though his decision is backed by Christian leaders, President Bush is the one blocking the path for advances in stem cell research. And unfortunately, he does have power.
As I have said before, the danger of religion comes not from the beliefs themselves, but from the actions predicated on those beliefs. George Bush claims that he answers to a higher power. The truth of the matter is that, by deferring to the Bible, he is answering to no one at all.
