First comes love, then comes...
I've just been perusing the Sunday paper (on the web, of course), and came across quite an interesting opinion article on the subject of gay marriage. Although this is topical only in a sort of constant sense, I do have opinions on the issue, so I thought I might just add some comments of my own. If you want to read the article in question, it's here.
Strangely, the author seems to be arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry will be beneficial to the institution of marriage. It's an interesting approach, trying to garner support from those people who hold marriage to be some sort of hallowed thing, but in my opinion it's missing the point. Those people shouldn't be pandered to, as they are as archaic and out of date as people who oppose same-sex relationships in the first place. I think that to start from a position of agreeing with them, and build an argument from there, is never going to work.
I think we need completely to move off enemy territory and define our own terms. Fighting to be let into an institution that is counter to one's beliefs in the first place is ridiculous. What part of marriage is important to same-sex couples? What is the function it serves that they wish to be a part of? Certainly they do not want to enter into an unequal partnership in which one 'owns' the other and is dominant over them in the eyes of the law. For that is what marriage is about, at least the Christian form of it. As the author mentioned, but didn't seem to believe, it is misogynous. The bride is 'given away' by her father to her new owner, her husband. Although few people, I hope, actively think that way today, that is still the basis of the ceremony.
In these enlightened times (har, har), however, marriage is about a long term commitment to your partner, and a recognition of that partnership by society and the law. That is a choice that all couples should have available, same-sex or not. In France, a type of 'civil union', the Pacte Civile de Solidarité (PACS) was introduced as a way for same-sex couples to marry, and has been nearly as popular among heterosexual couples. We have to acknowledge that we live in a secular democracy, and that a religious union should not be the only one recognised in law. There are many couples that want the formal commitment that marriage offers without the religious and historically unequal overtones. They should be allowed to make that choice.
That was my two cents worth for the day. Freedom of choice, people. That's what secular democracy is supposed to be about. Let's make it happen.
Strangely, the author seems to be arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry will be beneficial to the institution of marriage. It's an interesting approach, trying to garner support from those people who hold marriage to be some sort of hallowed thing, but in my opinion it's missing the point. Those people shouldn't be pandered to, as they are as archaic and out of date as people who oppose same-sex relationships in the first place. I think that to start from a position of agreeing with them, and build an argument from there, is never going to work.
I think we need completely to move off enemy territory and define our own terms. Fighting to be let into an institution that is counter to one's beliefs in the first place is ridiculous. What part of marriage is important to same-sex couples? What is the function it serves that they wish to be a part of? Certainly they do not want to enter into an unequal partnership in which one 'owns' the other and is dominant over them in the eyes of the law. For that is what marriage is about, at least the Christian form of it. As the author mentioned, but didn't seem to believe, it is misogynous. The bride is 'given away' by her father to her new owner, her husband. Although few people, I hope, actively think that way today, that is still the basis of the ceremony.
In these enlightened times (har, har), however, marriage is about a long term commitment to your partner, and a recognition of that partnership by society and the law. That is a choice that all couples should have available, same-sex or not. In France, a type of 'civil union', the Pacte Civile de Solidarité (PACS) was introduced as a way for same-sex couples to marry, and has been nearly as popular among heterosexual couples. We have to acknowledge that we live in a secular democracy, and that a religious union should not be the only one recognised in law. There are many couples that want the formal commitment that marriage offers without the religious and historically unequal overtones. They should be allowed to make that choice.
That was my two cents worth for the day. Freedom of choice, people. That's what secular democracy is supposed to be about. Let's make it happen.
posted by Nick | 3:17 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home