|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 12 |
 |
Flaws in the "defending marriage" argument
JAMES BAUMBERGER
ORIENT STAFF
This summer when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws prohibiting sodomy were unconstitutional, Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the ruling would likewise forbid other laws regulating moral behavior.
Citing "laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity," Scalia worried that "every single one of these laws is called into question by [the court's] decision."
A mass of conservatives have taken Scalia's warning seriously, at least in part. Also bolstered by last year's Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling requiring the state to allow same-sex marriages, a campaign has begun to save marriage from the mighty pen of "activist judges." The argument goes something like this: If we can't outlaw sodomy, how can we protect marriage by restricting it to heterosexual couples?
Their answer is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thereby preventing states like Massachusetts from legalizing same-sex marriage.
The biggest flaw in this argument-aside from the good case to be made that gay marriage isn't a threat to marriage whatsoever-is that in this crusade to defend marriage, the conservatives are ignoring the biggest threat to marriage of them all: adultery.
Scalia himself warned of the implications of the Lawrence ruling as it pertains to outlawing marital infidelity. But this seems to have not made it on the radar screens of the marriage crusaders.
If one considers that infidelity frequently leads to divorce, it would stand to reason that adultery is a significant threat to the institution of marriage. But there has been no effort to pass a constitutional amendment affirming the government's right to outlaw infidelity and punish philanderers.
This inconsistency is rather puzzling. I am hard-pressed to imagine that anyone could look at an unfaithful heterosexual marriage on one hand and a monogamous same-sex marriage on the other and still say that they feel the gay couple is a bigger threat to the institution than the straight one.
Moreover, if you asked anyone what were the most important virtues of a marriage you would come up with answers like love, friendship, trust, honesty, commitment, and fidelity. Adultery flies in the face of all of these virtues. Same-sex marriage does not.
By ignoring the most real threat to the institution, supporters of the amendment are showing a weak commitment to actually improving marriage while showing a strong commitment to perpetuating the status of homosexuals as second-class citizens.
The same argument also applies to people who oppose same-sex marriage solely on religious grounds. Politically vocal religious leaders speak much less about the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") than they do about the immorality of homosexuality.
The reasons behind the opposition to gay marriage are more complex than simply one's religious background or one's desire to preserve the sanctity of marriage. The entire range of motivations seems to be as elusive as it is rooted in centuries upon centuries of moral tradition.
If those that oppose gay marriage because of their religion or because they want to preserve marriage are not equally passionate about other aspects of their religion or other ways to preserve marriage (read: adultery), there must also be something deeper influencing their beliefs. Until we recognize the full spectrum of deep-seated feelings that inform opinions on gay marriage-and realize that this isn't just about religion or "defending marriage"-we won't be able to have an honest debate on homosexuality.
For information on sending a letter to the editor, please click here.
|
FastCounter by bCentral |