In California, the debate about legalizing same-sex marriage is coming to a head with a vote in the November election. An argument to keep marriage between one man and one woman is made in David Blankenhorn’s Op-Ed in the LA Times:
Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood — biological, social and legal — into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.
There is lots to say about this, but Blankenhorn’s piece is refreshingly cogent for such an emotionally charged issue.
Comments (3)
in light of the marginal passing of proposition 8 in california, i wonder if the anger of pro-gay-marriage activists is a repercussion of a long history of unloving behavior largely by the christian community. the thoughts to ponder at this time would be (1) how to have open and compassionate dialogue between peoples of opposing views, (2) how to demonstrate that opposing same-sex marriage is not about taking rights away from individuals, (3) how to demonstrate care and compassion to those who disagree.
A friend of mine referred me to your blog. I read this entry awhile ago and have been thinking about it since. I support traditional marriage because of my religious upbringing, but I have real qualms about your entry and the article. If the only reason why same-sex marriage should not be legal is because of its lack of value for the society, I don’t think that is a good reason. Does everything need to have value in order for it be maintained and supported? What about the child who is born with severe disabilities? Does he have value or worth even if he cannot do things as most of us can? I get that there are sociological consequences for gay marriage, but isn’t this more an issue about absolute sexual morality?
I have to take issue with this post. If the primary purpose of marriage is child-bearing, then we would also not allow couples who choose to remain childless and those who cannot biologically have children to receive marriage licenses either. It would follow that, like same-sex marriage, their marriages are not fulfilling the “primary” purpose of marriage, so there should be no reason for them to be allowed to marry each other. Of course we would never think of doing that as a society because marriage is a fundamental, constitutionally-protected, civil right. To deny that right to an entire class of people is discrimination, plain and simple. To say that the reason why we are not required to confer those rights upon all citizens is because they cannot bear children (while conferring the right on other couples who fit that same description) is a farce.