That subject again
Cathy Young writes very sensibly about the same-sex marriage debate. A supporter of same-sex marriage, Young is at least willing to give the other side its due without reflexively resorting to the accusation of bigotry. Here she asks a question that anyone with an opinion on the matter ought to consider:
... [Gallagher] is arguing that the reason the sexual union of male and female is and has always been surrounded by special legal protections, and has been accorded a special status, is that such unions are known to result in children. Take away procreation as a crucial element of marriage, and the rationale for special government sanction for marriage vanishes (and perhaps the rationale for cultural support, as well); it becomes just another private relationship in which society has no special interest. The end result, Gallagher predicts, will be "the de-institutionalization of marriage altogether." And like it or not, she has a point. Unless children are an issue, why should the government take an interest in whether we settle down with a steady partner in a sexual relationship? Yes, there is evidence that married people are happier and healthier than singles, but that doesn't necessarily justify government involvement; there is also plenty of evidence that people who have a network of close friends are happier and healthier than loners, but we don't have special legally mandated benefits for friendships.
... [Gallagher] is arguing that the reason the sexual union of male and female is and has always been surrounded by special legal protections, and has been accorded a special status, is that such unions are known to result in children. Take away procreation as a crucial element of marriage, and the rationale for special government sanction for marriage vanishes (and perhaps the rationale for cultural support, as well); it becomes just another private relationship in which society has no special interest. The end result, Gallagher predicts, will be "the de-institutionalization of marriage altogether." And like it or not, she has a point. Unless children are an issue, why should the government take an interest in whether we settle down with a steady partner in a sexual relationship? Yes, there is evidence that married people are happier and healthier than singles, but that doesn't necessarily justify government involvement; there is also plenty of evidence that people who have a network of close friends are happier and healthier than loners, but we don't have special legally mandated benefits for friendships.
posted by Kate Marie | 10:15 AM | Permalink
|
4 comments
4 Comments:
The great debate rages. Government arguable has an interst in societal stability, but take away the children and the only rationalization is one of morality, and using the government as a tool to advance the common conception of morality.
"... using the government as a tool to advance the common conception of morality."
-- I thought only them thar nanderthawls on the religious right did that.
Well, criminal law is all based on morality and value judgments as to what we as a society consider moral or not. But since "Thou shalt not Kill" has its basis in the 10 commandments, I expect the ACLU to try to repeal all murder statutes.
In fact, I'm surprised that they haven't sued to force the rebulding of all 90 degree angle intersections, as they appear from the air to be crosses.
"Well, criminal law is all based on morality and value judgments as to what we as a society consider moral or not."
-- Yep, exactly.
Post a Comment
<< Home