The Quest for Marriage Equality Takes a Familiar Twist
Remember Biblical King Solomon who tried to figure out which of two women a baby belonged to? One woman’s baby had died in the night and both women claimed the living child as their own. He offered to cut the baby in half to give each party an equitable share in what they wanted. One mother said yes, half a baby was better than no baby, but the other offered to give the baby away rather than see it be killed. Solomon knew who the real mother was by her true love for the child regardless of her own personal desires.
What does it say about proponents of “gay” marriage that they’d rather see the entire institution of marriage be destroyed than be content with domestic partnership? Isn’t this offer to “get the government” out of marriage akin to cutting the baby in half?
See this editorial from the L.A. Times:
A way out of Prop. 8
What if California got out of the marriage business altogether? What if the state merely licensed or just recognized private, contractual civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, and couples went to the religious or private institution of their choice to sanctify their vows? Would that resolve the legal differences between Proposition 8 and the state Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that gay and lesbian couples were entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals?
These were the questions Justice Ming W. Chin posited during oral arguments on the proposition Thursday before the high court. To which both sides responded: Why, yes, it would.
The subject has come up repeatedly in blogs and conversations, but this was the first official, public forum to give it voice, and it shouldn’t be the last. The argument frequently raised against same-sex marriage is that marriage represents a special bond, traditionally and biblically reserved for a man and woman. But under this approach, religions and other belief groups could continue to sanction marriage in accordance with their definitions, and the state could concern itself with the civil rights and responsibilities of two people who decide to share life, home, family and the remote. See the rest of this editorial here.
Isn’t this ignoring the reason society protects and promotes marriage? Statistically, no other group of adults is as effective in raising children as a man and a woman joined in marriage and committed to each other for life. No other group is as effective. That is a strong statement.
That is why societies promote gold standard marriage, and no other coupling.
The idea that “If I can’t have marriage, no one should!” is the product of self centered rhetoric that robs marriage of it’s connection to children and family in order to achieve seeming equality with homosexual unions.
Marriage is more than sex and self gratification. It is more than social acceptance and a societal stamp of approval on sexual behavior. Marriage is the glue of society. It is the nursery of our future generations and men and women who enter into marriage, promise to each other, God, society and their posterity that they will provide a stable loving environment for their children. Only marriage as defined provides the stability necessary for civilization’s values and societal mores to be passed from one generation to the next.
That this “half a baby” “scorched earth” idea can be taken seriously as public policy by gay advocates is laughable. It shows their lack of interest in marriage as an institution and illustrates activists’ perfect willingness to see the marriage institution destroyed if it furthers their own personal ambitions.
Whether society scraps marriage altogether or whether it promotes gay unions and marriages equally, the net result is the same. Marriage as an institution is destroyed.