March 03, 2004

Trivializing Marriage

Robert Kroll finds the reasoning behind the opposition to same-sex marriage wanting:

I am anxiously awaiting a reasonable argument from someone opposed to same sex marriage. I have heard and read that it is widely opposed. I know that it is said that legalization of homosexual marriage, gay marrige, lesbian marriage, etc. will undermine the very institution of marriage. So far, however, no one has actually given a cogent argument as to how same sex marriage harms heterosexual marriage. I'm straight. I'm married. I never thought I had a monopoly on marriage, a trade mark, copyright or patent that only allows straights to use the device. The fact that there are abusive wives or husbands out there has not affected my otherwise happy married life.
Even Britney Spears has not trivialized my marriage. Here is how I would trivialize my marriage if I were so inclined (to Jenn: I'm speaking rhetorically, sweetie; don't panic): I'd cheat on my wife. I'd stay out all night without calling home to check in. I'd keep my wife in the dark about my interests and desires and ambitions. I'd let her do all the Owen-raising. And the housework. I'd tell her that as the man, I'm in charge here, so I make all the final decisions, and that's final. Cuz God sed so.

Anyone who knows Jenn will have snorted their coffee by now. "Oh, yeah. Good luck with that. By the way, have you made a record of your dental impressions?" Cuz, y'see, I wouldn't have married some submissive simp of a girl. I like women. Strong, intelligent, independent women. I don't need someone to make me feel like a man. I feel like a man all the time. I like it. It's fun. If I didn't like it, if being a man wasn't appealing to me, there's always transsexual surgery. But I don't need someone else, a woman or a man, to reassure my manhood. I need Jenn to be Jenn, she needs me to be me (although I'm sure she might like it if I was less so in certain, er, annoying habits). Insofar as our marriage goes, the rest of the world is irrelevent.

Posted by kevinmoore at March 3, 2004 11:13 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Here, here! What I feel trivializes marriage at this point is the implied monopoly that heterosexuals have on it. Matt and I have discussed it and both of us can't help but feel that the 'in denial' bigots have trivialized the institution as a members only club that doesn't actually represent our feelings or philosophies.

Posted by: Kim at March 7, 2004 01:31 AM

The issue is not can someone present a reasonable argument for same sex marriage. The issue is first, do the courts have the right to create policies that directly violate the intent of the constitution. They obviously believe they do, although our founding fathers would have ardently disagreed (see Alexander Hamilton's explanation in the Fedralist #78). Another issue is that of the majority. "We the People" has recently lost its incredible significance due to the fact that minority opinion now becomes the basis of law making in a greater degree than ever before. The founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, believed that there was protection in following the will of the majority. Not that minority groups could not voice their opinions and try to persuade the majority, but that it would be dangerous for them to have the power. So important was this principle of government that George Washington said, "[T]he fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail." The issue here is not primarily homosexual marriage but will we rob ourselves of the national protection of the constitution which contains the principles upon which this great nation was built. Thomas Jefferson saw the whittling away of constitution by the judiciary as the great danger to our way of government. The issue at stake is bigger than does-Ronny-love-Bill(?). Love has nothing to do with it. If law was established based on personal love choices we would have chaos! The other crucial issue is that of what is marriage(?). Is marriage a secular institution or a sacred institution? This is the reasonable answers you should be asking for because then you would be getting down to the real issues.

Posted by: Steven at May 6, 2004 12:53 PM

If the majority were all that mattered in democracy, we wouldn't have separation of powers in our government nor Constitutional protections of free speech, religion and press. Indeed, most of the Bill of Rights would be moot. Yet Jefferson et al. pressed for these protections because they knew from experience not to place blind faith in the infallible wisdom of the majority. 500,000 Elvis Presley fans can be wrong. They'll support segregation, westward colonization of indigenous lands, Jim Crow, banning private sexual practices, or any other law or means by which State tools can be used to persecute the weak. Through patient struggle and constant debate, plus a judicious use of the mechanisms of government, do aggrieved minorities manage to protect their interests and improve the quality of our democracy. Eventually the Elvis fans figure it out.

Posted by: Kevin Moore at May 7, 2004 08:22 AM