OLDER EVE PIECES ON MARRIAGE: Eve

Hi all. Maggie suggested I post a link to an old piece I did for the National Catholic Register on gay marriage. I'm not 100% thrilled with it (and especially its title!--which I think I didn't choose) so I will also give you a couple other links at the end of this post. Anyway, some relevant excerpts from that 2003 NCR piece:

The same-sex marriage debate has focused on the question of what marriage is. But perhaps it’s better to begin from a different angle: Why does society give marriage special honor?

Because it's this honor that activists are really seeking. If homosexual couples could cobble together all the bureaucratic
oddities and benefits (and penalties) that attend marriage but the law still refused to call their unions "marriages," no one can pretend the activists would be satisfied. ...

And finally, unlike easy divorce, same-sex marriage would change the fundamental ideal of marriage. Even the most ardent defenders of divorce today view it as a necessary evil, a response to the tragedy of marriage failure. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral -- not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen -- children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses' union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father -- a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to unwed mothers.

more

So, for newer stuff, you can read a long-winded series from me on MarriageDebate in 2005--(one) (two) (three) (four) (five)--which makes some good points but is long and a bit defensive. Or the second half of this article, which makes similar points much more punchily.
posted by Eve at 9:55 PM | link

<< Home