March 02, 2004

Gay Marriage -- the Plastic Exploding Inevitable

I’ve borrowed Warhol’s term because before our eyes the exploding definition of marriage is ushering in the inevitable yet plastic idea of gay marriage.

Conservatives are shocked, but shouldn’t be: they could have seen this coming from a long way off. Marriage has ALREADY been redefined by heterosexual culture during the last few decades -- an idea conservatives have written about.

Marriage is no longer a complex system of obligations, restrictions, and rewards that fuse a couple with the psychic diversity of each other (male and female), with the children, with the in-laws, with religious institutions, and with the wider community; rather, the new marriage is an exchangeable, temporary, utilitarian, legal and emotional commitment for each others’ convenience and self-fulfillment…the relatives, the community, the religion, and the kids be damned.

Gays are not redefining marriage; rather, marriage has been redefined by society to the point that it has become tailor-made for gays and their communities.

In extending this watered-down version of marriage to gays, the judicial system is just reflecting this new reality. At this point: why not? What’s the dif?

But those most surprised will be the gays that are supporting this turn of events -- for in the long run they’re helping to push out of existence exactly what it is that they want: acceptance.

Gay couples want to be accepted by society like society accepts the ‘ole traditional married couples -- but gays are trying to take a short cut; to get there via the new definition.

The new definition of marriage does not include social acceptance -- in fact, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IT!

Keith Burgess-Jackson -- in his blog AnalPhilosopher -- recently linked to an article “For Better or for Worse?” by the Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon (in The Wall Street Journal of 2/25/04). Glendon said:

“Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together.”

Check it out.

Posted by Rick Penner at March 2, 2004 05:00 PM
Comments