|
LET US WED
It rests on equality, liberty and even society.
Let us wed...
That
idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only three
countries-Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands-have given full legal status
to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and is
currently adopting a national policy. The sight of homosexual men and
women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for centuries by
heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of us
holding hands or kissing.
The
case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving,
consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which,
if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else?
Not
just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure:
until the 1969,
in some American states it was illegal for African-American adults to
marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds
that it was „traditional“. Another argument is rooted in semantics:
marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to
same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot,
by this argument, be „married“. But that is to dodge the real
question-why not?--and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a
binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people
to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make
such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should
we be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other
ways, are allowed to do so?
Civil
unions are not enough!
The
case against same sex marriage, according to the religious right, is that
this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is
surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because we see marriage as
important: we want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of
obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing
gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would
increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply
passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals’
doing, not gays’, for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and
single-parent families that have wrought social damage.
But
marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, often , but
not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a
religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe
that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious
status. Indeed, in America
the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious
matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now
to be used for religious ends. (As some proponents of the constitutional
amendment in America banning gay marriage would pretend to do).
The
importance of marriage for society’s general health and stability also
explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage-a so-called
civil union-is not enough.
Yet
that civil unions would be both wrong in principle and damaging for
society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just
a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage
for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why
shouldn’t everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really
would threaten a fundamental institution of civilization.
Carlos Mock
Chicago, IL
|
Los
Martes de Enkidu
[27.01.2005]: 