Defense of Marriage My Anatomy 5
I have been married and divorced twice–what used to be called, back when I was young, a “two-time loser.”
I’m not proud of the divorce part. But there have been some good times and some bad times, and I am very proud of my children.
Neither divorce happened because two doors down, or two streets down, or two states down and to the left there might have been two male or female homosexuals who wanted to solemnize their commitment in some formal, official way.
The proposed defense of marriage amendment is no such thing. In no way does it protect, promote, encourage, strengthen, or defend marriage.
I understand that those who support it include many who sincerely and deeply believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. I can respect those views.
My own beliefs are more in flux, but are somewhat influenced by growing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic component. (If that is the case, cannot be characterized simply as a “choice.” Over the years, indeed, I have known a number of persons who were drawn to members of the same sex; I do know that for none of them was it a choice–it was a fate.)
I cannot respect those who are using this issue to stir the pot, whose interest is clearly not moral concern, but rather political concern, those who choose to exploit fear and bigotry for cynical political gain.
You see them flying around this amendment the way the way seagulls follow a plough, sqawking and keening their cries, leaving their droppings on the body politic.
June 10, 2006 at 10:03 pm
My hunch is that all of our sexual appetites are to some extent innate and unchosen. It’s an interesting discussion.
It’s also a discussion in which the mass media are of little help. As usual, the most reliable revenue flow comes from reporting the worst of both sides of the issue. Compassionate discussion doesn’t pay the bills.
There are a lot of interesting questions around this whole issue. Personally, I see no advantage in society sanctioning homosexual marriage, but it’s going to happen. There’s no societal definition of marriage anymore, and that whole decline started long before this homosexual marriage controversy.
June 11, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Very well said.
Regarding your comment that “It’s going to happen,” you might be interested in this column.
Some of this, I think, is terminology.
As far as I am concerned, “marriage” has to be about a man and a woman; that definition is a societal and religious definition that can’t be changed by fiat. But as regards access to medical records, next-of-kin legal rights, and the like, I really can’t be bothered to get worked up about whether the “next-of-kin” is the same sex as the other or not.
No doubt, had the persons who wrote the Massachusetts constitution ever anticipated that this issue would come up, they would have framed their document differently so as to preclude that court decision.
June 13, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Come on Frank. As free thinking as you are, now you are saying. “As far as I am concerned, “marriageâ€? has to be about a man and a woman; that definition is a societal and religious definition that can’t be changed by fiat” Marriage is about 2 people who love each other, who have made a commitment to each other regardless. Regardless of what society tells them or religion tells them. Marriage is about 2 people willing to share their lives and make it public, via the court system. Marriage is not about sex, or sexual tendencies, it’s about loving that person and wanting to make it “legal” by the standards of “law” Why do we as hetrosexuals, feel we have to keep this “marriage thing” to ourselves?
PS: I’m not just saying this because of “you know who” It’s what I have believed all along
June 13, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Being a truly “free” thinker means sometimes reaching conclusions other “free thinkers” can’t agree with. Anything else is not free thought. (That’s why I chuckle at some of the athiests who call themselves “free thinkers.” Euphemism city.)
Of course, I can defend Frank since he and I always agree on everything anyway.
Marriage never had been defined as “2 people who love each other, who have made a commitment to each other regardless.” The opposite sex component has always been there.
Frank, as to the Inquirer column you linked to, I could have written nearly all of it myself. It’s exactly the kind of thing that’s been on my mind in recent years, in both the same-sex marriage aspect and in the religious freedom aspect.
If you’ve been listening to Terry Gross lately, you’ll know where I got this question from, but it’s interesting: when homophobia becomes a crime, what will happen to the male actor who has kissed women in movies before but refuses a director’s sudden request to kiss a man in a scene?
June 14, 2006 at 8:18 pm
He’ll probably have to sleep with the Director to get another job.