Same-sex marriage advocates lose touch with reality

Same-sex marriage advocates lose touch with reality

The pro-same-sex marriage crowd is like the pro-abortion crowd in its ability to re-define reality. Take for example, this op-ed in yesterday’s Boston Globe, which tried to make a connection between laws that used to ban interracial marriage with attempts to protect the definition of marriage.

That’s a red herring. Marriage is a union of man and woman and it is clear that laws than banned marriage based on race are not the same as saying that two men or two women can’t marry. The argument against same-sex marriage says that it is an attempt to create something that doesn’t exist. Laws against interracial marriage take what is obviously marriage by the real definition and make it illegal based solely on race, which is obviously wrong.

That said, here is the challenge to reality contained in the column: “In 2004, when Massachusetts faced a legal challenge of whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, we got it right. Marriage equality is written into our Constitution where it belongs and should remain.” Exactly when was same-sex marriage written into the Constitution? Did someone pass a constitutional amendment when I wasn’t looking? No. This is the typical liberal viewpoint. They imbue in a judicial decision the ability to change the meaning of the Constitution. Just because a panel of judges rule a particular way, they believe the Constitution is changed. What happens if a future bench of the Supreme Judicial Court reverses this decision. Is the Constitution changed again?

Technorati Tags:, , ,

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
  • “When there was a ban on interracial marriage, what was prohibited was that black people could not marry white people (to give an example of an interracial couple). However, black people could still marry black people, and white people still could marry white people. While the law intended to discriminate against minorities (in this case, blacks), the people who were discriminated against were not just minorities. For there to be an interracial couple, there needs to be one person who is of the other race, in this case, a white person. The interracial mariage didn’t violate the definition of marriage.

    Today, however, the situation is exactly the opposite. Gay people have always been allowed to marry. Just ask Governor McGreevey of New Jersey, who was married twice to women, who, to our knowledge, were not lesbians. However, he may not marry another man, even if that man was straight. If the analogy were to hold, then the current law would allow Governor McGreevey to marry other gay people, whether men or women, but not straight people. Because of this, the interracial analogy is completely off base, as it deals with a situation nothing like the current one for gay people.

    Furthermore, even if the analogy did hold, heterosexual marriage is universal, whereas endogamy is not. Therefore, the government maintains that which is part of the universal definition of marriage and discards that which is variable in different cultures. Doing such, people of one race may or may not choose to marry people of another race. “


  • I don’t buy the Globe so I don’t have the picture, but my guess is that the guy in the collar is Episcopalian or another variety of Protestant whose ministers still wear collars.

  • The point is that legalizing or banning interracial marriage was not an attempt to re-define what marriage is. It is obviously wrong and it was obviously wrong to many people. Just because a lot of people don’t agree doesn’t mean it isn’t.

    But then I believe in moral absolutes.

    And what you “bet” isn’t evidence, it is an assertion without evidence. Unless you can provide evidence I’m won’t dignify it with a response.

  • Notre Dame’s Gerard Bradley has noted that the shared conception of marriage as a naturally procreative institution, though already damaged by contraception, is still retained in the current culture.  However, homosexual marriage removes that natural association completely.

    Just as easy divorce destroyed the common idea of marriage as a permanent union, gay marriage threatens the common goods of common concepts.

  • Rick,

    You must not have read it too carefully. This point (and what follows it) address that situation directly:

    You’re right that many married couples do not (and indeed choose not to) have children and rear them. As a civil reality, marriage is a potential and not always an actual provider of the benefits that the state intends to reward. But the same is true of any favored institution. Almost all societies at all times have provided “veterans benefits” of some sortrecognizing, I would argue, the necessary role of the military in preserving the community and recognizing the potential sacrifices by the soldiers that are involved. In fact, of course, the huge majority of military personnel in modern warfare never hear a shot fired in anger, and a great many exploit the service for their own purely selfish ends. But they still are accorded benefits as servicemen, and I think the rationale is based on the contribution made and the sacrifice involved in the “typical” caseand here I mean not typical on sociological grounds but more on teleological grounds: typical in this context means the soldier who risks his life for his country, the soldier who does what a soldier is for.

    True, most couples contracept. True, most soldiers encounter nothing more dangerous than a moving fan belt. But the state rewards both simply as participants in a particular institution, because that institution serves an honorable purpose. By the same token, a couple that breeds a large family of thieves and murderers and a soldier so grotesquely incompetent that he harms his own unit cause the state more aggregate harm than good, but the existence of neither category of misfits should cast doubt on the honorableness of the institutions of marriage or military service per se or on the reasonableness of the state in privileging them.

    A gay couple asking the state for marriage benefits, even if they can point to adoptive children they are raising, would in my view be analogous to a private-sector engineer arguing for veteran’s benefits on the grounds that his engineering did more good for the war effort than the soldiering of most soldiers. Even if it is true in fact, it is incidental to the reason why we privilege veterans as veterans.

    The several paragraphs following continue the relevant argument.

  • Rick, the text does NOT support your argument because what the text says is that while the 80 year olds are not capable of having children, they still receive the benefits of it in the way that those who do not serve in combat receive veterans benefits. However, to declare same-sex couples married would be like giving my mom, who never served in the military in any capacity, the benefits those who did serve receive.  The text supports non-combat veterans receiving benefits, and therefore it supports octogenearians marrying.  It doesn’t support Mrs. Infante from getting veterans benefits, and therefore does not support “gay” marriage.

  • Rick: You can count it how ever you want. I never asked you for your opinion and wasn’t interested in debating you so I couldn’t care less. Unless you’ve changed someone’s mind I don’t see how it matters one whit.

    You are under the misapprehension that I post this stuff in order to debate same-sex marriage advocates. I do not since that would imply that I have an open mind on the issue. I do not. There is only one truth in this matter and you’re wrong no matter what you say.


  • See, Rick, that’s the thing. I’m not some New York City lawyer who thinks he’s arguing a case. I’m a Catholic who believes his faith and who knows that what comes from his brain is not Divine Revelation and for whom the five non-negotiables of the current public policy debate are in fact, non-negotiable.

    So you can remain in contempt of me for my simple-minded surety of belief. It’s the least sort of suffering there is, but it puts me in good company with a lot of very holy people, right back to Jesus Christ himself.

  • Rick, I just removed myself from the subscription, so this is my last post on this.  As Robert George records in “A Clash of Orthodoxies”, the reproductive act is different than any other act we as humanity do.  Eating, digesting, thinking are all single body acts.  Reproduction is a two-body becomes one-body act.  An infertile couple can still become one-flesh.  A homosexual couple cannot.  The pieces don’t fit.