The Future Of Marriage In The United Christian States Of America
The Baptist Press reports that "the future of America is at stake in the struggle over legalizing same-sex" marriage. And they're right. Are we going to become the United Christian States Of America, or continue as a secular country?
The fundamentalists trot out frightened idiots like columnist Maggie Gallagher, who howled, at a Senate hearing, that the institution of marriage will be forever damaged if it's removed from its narrow, religiously-based definition. She argues (naturally, in a religiously-correct way) that children are central to the purpose of marriage. Well then, Maggie, let's go all the way and make couples take fertility tests before they tie the knot! "Barren" women or men who don't have enough swimmies have to stay single forever! Come on Maggie, it's called logic, and it's best when it isn't selectively employed.
Gallagher sees great horror in the idea that gay couples would become parents -- probably because she's never seen any gay parents. My experience has been that gay couples are amazing parents -- especially because they aren't having kids by accident ("Oops! The little strip turned pink!"). Because they have to go through rigorous adoption procedures, arrange for a surrogate mother to carry a child, or go the turkey baster route, gay parents don't have children unless they're really committed to raising them. That's something that they don't have in common with straight parents -- and what a good thing that is.
The whole ridiculous hearing left Keith Bradkowski, a gay guy who lost his partner in the 9-11 attack, feeling pretty perplexed:
"Jeff and I only sought to love and take care of each other," he said. "I do not understand why that is a threat to some people and I cannot understand why the leaders of this country would hold a hearing on the best way to prevent that from happening."
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh posted this report from the Federal Marriage Amendment hearing from Dale Carpenter, a professor who testified.
These people need to realize that Christianity is not the only religion to practice marriage, and that domestic partnerships, since the beginning of time, have always existed outside of religious influence. Marriage should be defined by the law, based on fairness, not by the churches.
Patrick at September 7, 2003 6:57 AM
You're absolutely right. The religion should be taken out of marriage, at least in terms of state certification of it. People can go to their Wiccan whatever or their church and tie the knot with wolf's blood or however they prefer, separate from the state aspect. But the idea that one section of our society is denied rights because another sector is obsessed about whom they're having sex with -- totally backward.
(Amy Alkon) at September 7, 2003 10:53 AM
I don't really see that there is a "religious" definition of marriage. Marriage is, in this day, a legal concept: when people get married, they assume legal obligations to each other, the way businesspeople assume legal obligations to one another when they form a partnership. Homosexuals who marry just want to enjoy the same legal rights that other married people enjoy, like rights in each other's property (at present, a family that cut off their homosexual child still has the primary rights in that child's property, and a homosexual partner has no really solid legal claim on that property).
Jeff at September 7, 2003 1:57 PM
The religious definition of marriage is what's preventing gays from getting married. The reason I've been flooding the blog with all this religio-terror stuff recently, is that I'm terrified and very upset that every other decision coming out of The White House is based on fundamentalist Christianity. Then here in California, we have Gray Davis giving away the farm in hopes of retaining his office. I could actually respect him more (okay, in some tiny way) if his signature flying onto anything and everything now was in some way based on an irrationally held set of religious beliefs. Unfortunately, he's just a plain old whore.
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2003 2:44 PM
And my apologies to all the honest, hard-working whores I just maligned. You know what I was trying to say.
Amy Alkon at September 7, 2003 2:45 PM
Thank you, Ms. Alkon, for using the word "whores." If one more person calls me a "commercial sex worker," I am going to have to get VERY ugly.
Lena "She-works-hard-for-the-money" Cuisina
Lena Cuisina at September 7, 2003 3:01 PM
Actually, I like the religio-terror stuff...Let's face it, humanity won't be happy until the last capitalist is hung with the guts of the last priest...Yes, I'm joking.
Jeff at September 7, 2003 7:26 PM