Minnesota Public Radio is re-broadcasting a debate over Minnesota’s proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.
Maggie Gallagher’s argument seems to be based on the premise that marriage between men and women are the only relationships that will create children. She also seems to think, contrary to the evidence, that marriage will keep a man and a woman together so they will raise the children the create.
Starting with the argument that “traditional” marriage between and a man and woman will keep families intact, I think one has to ask how banning gay marriage will somehow reverse a trend that seems to be a problem among heterosexual couples.
This argument is plainly absurd. The idea that banning marriage among members of one group will make marriage as an overall institution stronger defies logic. If you want people to respect marriage, shouldn’t you support people eager to embrace the obligations and responsibilities of marriage?
What is so insecure about so-called traditional marriage that it will be threatened by other non-traditional couples making a marriage commitment? Perhaps straight couples fear that the idea of gay marriage will catch on. Ken will leave Barbie. Frankly, that’s what I do think is at play here, at least in part. What is the inherent nature of insecurity, after all? Think about that, homophobe!
Maggie’s more ridiculous argument in favor of stripping away the natural rights of people unlike her is this idea that marriage is the way babies are made. You know, I am just not going to talk about the obvious silliness here. Babies are made when men and women have sex, married or otherwise. It did not take the institution of marriage to take procreation possible. Childbirth is a biological, not a social, phenomenon.
But if having children is a reason for defending heterosexual marriage, how far do we want to take the logic of this argument? Let’s say a couple chooses not to have children, are they married? Are they REALLY married, Maggie? Suppose they have a sexless marriage, perhaps the pro-anti-gay marriage amendment people want to regulate sexual activity to ensure that a marriage is legit. Kinda cheapens the whole idea that sex is a beautiful natural thing, but then we’re not really dealing with people with much sense for such things.
These debates would be silly if they were not about serious issues that affect lives of people. Not only is the marry a social issue, in our society it includes a great deal of legal issues as well. The state has no place in assigning different access to rights. In fact it is the state’s role to do just the opposite. The state should defend the rights of the minority against the will of that majority. Putting up a social, private, and legal issue to a vote runs directly against government’s proper role which is to ensure equal access to rights for all.
Finally, conservatives often promote the slippery slope argument. Where will it end, they ask? People will marry multiple partners and animals…cats and dogs might marry each other (I don’t know). Well, first off, people promoting gay marriage are not promoting these other “monstrosities” so why get worked up?
For my part I want to marry my truck. Why not? I spend a lot of time with my truck and it treats me well. Today I bought it a quart of oil (it needs it) and maybe tomorrow I will invest in a bath for my truck. And I think my truck loves me. Every morning, without complaint, it starts right up. If that isn’t love, tell me what is.
- MN Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Supporter Has Hurricane-Force Aversion to Homosexuality: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
- Maggie Gallagher Vs. America’s Best Christian: VIDEO (towleroad.com)
- Gay Marriage Bill Passes New Jersey Senate (newyork.cbslocal.com)