Two important aspects of the legislation are that it defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman as I already stated and that it leaves the power to enforce it's legislation to the state.
I don't believe this was ever good legislation but it was a start. By making this law it forces our conscience on the issue, a civil liberties issue. It is a seed that, through good debate, will inevitably lead to positive social reform.
Not all debate is good. This article at the Heritage Foundation gives good examples of bad arguments. So bad, I wanted to go over them to point out how bad they are.
The article attempts to defend DOMA by linking it to the welfare of children. I see two fundamental flaws in this maneuver.
First I would like to say that I am not attempting to argue whether the testimony of Tom Minnery, Senior VP of Focus on the Family, is correct or not. We can, for the moment, assume it is true that children raised in a one man and one woman household are more likely to be well adjusted.
The article leads with "...the government's profound interest in sustaining the integrity of the institution of marriage because of the unique contribution of a married mother and father make to child welfare."
The first and most obvious negation of this argument is that marriage and parenthood are two different things! This argument belongs to a debate about whether gay couples should be allowed to raise children, not in a debate about whether they should be allowed to get married.
That point is so strong that my other arguments are really moot, but I will throw them in for good measure anyway.
Even if it were true that children are more well adjusted in a traditional family setting, many children are not. There are millions of children living in poverty. There are children with no parents. Children of single parents. There are innumerable children living poorly in traditional families as well.
Where in that spectrum would children of same sex marriages fall? Unless you can say they would be better off living in the streets without parents, this is a pretty poor argument indeed.
As a civil rights issue, I don't believe that even a majority vote should be allowed to abridge the rights of citizens. As a nation, we may still be a bit immature on the issue; however, we can look at our past an clearly see similar civil rights issues with more clarity. For example, if we were talking about women's suffrage or abolitionism we would not hesitate to say 'of course.' It was not always 'of course.' It took a great deal of debate and social maturing to get where we are.
If we are wise, or at least have wise leaders, we do not have to endure the same growing pains over and over. We can learn from our past trials and act accordingly.
1 comment:
You know that it won't change without the growing pains. In thirty years we will look back at the hell we have to endure now and say "of course" while we attend same-sex marriages in the spring and little johnny and jane will be well adjusted even if they have two mommies, or two daddies. (Of course by then we will have a new thing to hate and we will be dealing with these very same social issues even then...)
Post a Comment