Spring Break
Institution of marriage evolves with society
Jamie Thomson
Issue date: 7/11/08 Section: Ed-Op
The concept of marrying for "love" or "romance" is fairly modern, having not been particularly prevalent until medieval times, and has become one of the primary motives for marriage in American culture, likely stemming from the value we place on freedom of choice. Arranged marriages are far less prevalent in modern America than in any other country or time in the past.
Society continues to change,
and the institution of marriage must change with it. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are no less human than any heterosexual, and society is finally beginning to accept them as such. They are no less entitled to those "certain unalienable rights" than any other citizen, American or otherwise. They think, feel and love no less than anyone else, and they contribute just as much to society. Why should they be forced to settle for less when it comes to marriage?
History has shown us that "separate is not equal," and the laws of today reflect this. Civil unions, if they are even offered in a given state, are not always recognized outside the originating state. They do not permit couples to file jointly their federal income taxes like a married couple, and they are plagued with inequalities when it comes to health care decisions, hospital visitation, social security and veteran death benefits, rights to divorce and rights to inheritance. Civil unions are by definition not marriage, and nothing less than marriage is acceptable for true equality.
Claims that allowing gays to marry will "corrupt" marriage are simply ridiculous. The civil meaning of marriage does not impact the meaning of Christian marriage any more than the meaning of Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or any other form of marriage; likewise, the values of religion certainly feed into society's definition, but in America they do not dictate the law.
Allowing people of the same sex to marry no more devalues the "institution of marriage" than couples who choose not to have children, couples who have arranged marriages, or families with healthy polygamist relationships.
It in no way means that we will have to allow polygamy or bestiality or any number of things, unless they, too, become socially acceptable lifestyles. The only thing legalization of homosexual marriage will destroy is an outdated, discriminatory social standard.
When I first became aware of this issue back in 2004, Stephen Medvic, at that time an assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, put it best in a letter to the Lancaster Sunday News: "We've decided that liberty trumps order unless freedom gives rise to great potential harm. But no such harm exists in allowing two people of the same sex to marry."
Four years later, California and Massachusetts are making progress towards equal marriage rights for all. When will the rest of America follow suit?
Society continues to change,
and the institution of marriage must change with it. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are no less human than any heterosexual, and society is finally beginning to accept them as such. They are no less entitled to those "certain unalienable rights" than any other citizen, American or otherwise. They think, feel and love no less than anyone else, and they contribute just as much to society. Why should they be forced to settle for less when it comes to marriage?
History has shown us that "separate is not equal," and the laws of today reflect this. Civil unions, if they are even offered in a given state, are not always recognized outside the originating state. They do not permit couples to file jointly their federal income taxes like a married couple, and they are plagued with inequalities when it comes to health care decisions, hospital visitation, social security and veteran death benefits, rights to divorce and rights to inheritance. Civil unions are by definition not marriage, and nothing less than marriage is acceptable for true equality.
Claims that allowing gays to marry will "corrupt" marriage are simply ridiculous. The civil meaning of marriage does not impact the meaning of Christian marriage any more than the meaning of Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or any other form of marriage; likewise, the values of religion certainly feed into society's definition, but in America they do not dictate the law.
Allowing people of the same sex to marry no more devalues the "institution of marriage" than couples who choose not to have children, couples who have arranged marriages, or families with healthy polygamist relationships.
It in no way means that we will have to allow polygamy or bestiality or any number of things, unless they, too, become socially acceptable lifestyles. The only thing legalization of homosexual marriage will destroy is an outdated, discriminatory social standard.
When I first became aware of this issue back in 2004, Stephen Medvic, at that time an assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College, put it best in a letter to the Lancaster Sunday News: "We've decided that liberty trumps order unless freedom gives rise to great potential harm. But no such harm exists in allowing two people of the same sex to marry."
Four years later, California and Massachusetts are making progress towards equal marriage rights for all. When will the rest of America follow suit?
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 11
Lux Gurusamy
posted 7/11/08 @ 5:29 AM EST
Jamie:
Congratulations on an article that is so eloquent even I am moved to ponder "may be I am wrong".
Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the way you have quoted Saint Augustine on your defense of the subject matter. (Continued…)
sally
posted 7/12/08 @ 12:31 AM EST
I came across an online community for individual seeking interracial love. Here all the people are seeking interracial relationships. ---Blackwhitemeet. (Continued…)
Pat D.
posted 7/13/08 @ 4:11 PM EST
I agree with Mr. Gurusamy. I have argued against him in the past, but on this issue I think he is right. When a new idea or philosphy enters into a culture, it does not change existing definitions or schools of thought. (Continued…)
Jamie
posted 7/13/08 @ 6:07 PM EST
Thanks Lux, it's always a treat to get some healthy debate going in this paper.
I mentioned that Saint Augustine bit because it was indeed so intriguing. (Continued…)
Steph
posted 7/16/08 @ 11:45 AM EST
"And if the argument for this definition change is that it is porgressive and it makes people happy, well then what about the even smaller minority of people who are attracted to animals. (Continued…)
Jamie
posted 7/18/08 @ 6:03 PM EST
I agree entirely, Steph. I used to argue against using "marriage" as a civil term, but at this point I think it is too entrenched in our society to be removed. (Continued…)
Mem
posted 7/22/08 @ 5:31 AM EST
Ugh. Im not at all glad with this article. It is liberal junk really if you ask me. I am Christian and I do believe that this will ruin the sanctity of marriage. (Continued…)
Anonymous
posted 7/23/08 @ 12:52 AM EST
Heterosexual Marriages helps with procreation thus Heterosexual Marriages lead to life.
Whereas Homosexual Marriages do not lead to procreation since both sexual partners cannot procreate thus Homesexual marriages lead to death. (Continued…)
nofanoflibs
posted 7/23/08 @ 12:04 PM EST
Marriage is between a man and a woman only.
Post a Comment