I’ve written pretty thoroughly on the subject of protecting
marriage. Here’s the basic list again:
- Defining Marriage and Making Cream Sauce (I co-authored with Richard Wilkins)
- Devaluing Marriage and Family--Part I, Part II, Part III
So today, I’m just commenting on some of what we’re seeing
in the Supreme Court’s hearing of oral arguments, Tuesday on the Prop 8
California case, and Wednesday on the federal DOMA law.
Some of the difficulty is the media wording of the issues,
so I think I’ll do a little translation.
Banning is the
wrong word. To ban something, the something must exist first. No one is “banning”
same-sex “marriage”; they are defending the definition marriage has always had—since
before the state existed to codify it in law. Technically, California claims
same-sex “marriage” existed there and was then “banned,” but that’s
disingenuous. The people of the state of California voted to keep the
definition, and the legislature decided to ignore them, so, before the legislation went
into effect, the people of the state put forth a proposition to change the
constitution to retain the original definition of marriage and won by majority
vote. And then judges flouted the decision, granting marriage licenses to
people who didn’t qualify for said licenses, leading to the court cases at issue
now. So, every time you hear the word
ban, know that it is the result of media manipulating public opinion.
“Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron. Marriage, real marriage, concerns the legal and societal concern with what
happens because of a specific sexual act, and only that act. To be blunt, a
marriage is only consummated once the couple engages in the male sexual organ
penetrating the female sexual organ, making possible egg
fertilization. If a married couple engages in any other type of mutually
voluntary sexual behavior, the state is simply uninterested. The reason is that
this particular sex act is what leads to procreation, which is of vital
interest to society, including the vulnerability caused by procreation,
especially to children but also to mothers.
Oral arguments Tuesday touched on the procreation issue, but
only awkwardly. What about couples who are infertile? What about couples
marrying too late in life to procreate? (Justice Kagan asked about marriage
after age 55, for example, apparently unaware that history offers many examples
of people 55 or older becoming parents.) Those questions are not for the court
to be concerned with; those are medical questions. Those couples can still
marry, because they can still engage in the sex act. And they can establish
permanent families going forward. Couples that fail to consummate the marriage
can have the contract annulled, meaning that because they do not include the behavior
of concern, their relationship does not qualify as marriage.
I don’t know why the simple question isn’t posed to same-sex
couples: “Do you intend to engage in male/female sexual intercourse required
for marriage? And how do you intend to do that without the appropriate body
parts?” Their issue isn’t infertility. Mostly they are fertile. They are simply
not engaging in the act with an appropriate partner to qualify for marriage.
There is not now, and has not been, any law “banning”
homosexuals from marrying—when marrying means engaging in the singular male/female
sex act that can lead to procreation, God willing. Homosexuals raising children
have all either engaged in that act, or they have adopted a child produced
through the coming together of someone else’s male and female seed. Even in the
growing business of female homosexuals using in vitro fertilization, they can’t
combine their egg with the egg of their partner; they have to have the semen
from a male donor. There is no physiological way for this couple to produce
offspring together. This basic fact of life ought to be obvious.
The supposed gotcha
question of those seeking to redefine marriage is, “How does a same-sex ‘marriage’
harm your heterosexual marriage?” And the assumption is that there is no harm,
so there is no answer. But that is incorrect. There’s enough to say on that to wait for
another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment