February 4, 2004

Opinions

e the other press ©

 

Marriage—A Polarizing Debate?

CAPD Right Hook

 

OP Columnist

In last Tuesday’s
State of the Union
“| speech, President
Bush outlined a
broad array of social policies, as
all presidents do. He spoke about
curtailing drug use among teens,
promoting abstinence, and
increasing funding for health-
care. Then he spoke about mar-
riage. “A strong America must
value the institution of mar-
riage,” he said, calling marriage
“One of the most fundamental,
enduring institutions of our civi-
lization.” He condemned
“activist judges” who, “without
regard for the will of the people”
have been redefining marriage to
include homosexual unions. In
response to such actions, the
President subtly suggested he
might support an amendment to
the US constitution banning
such an act. The issue of gay
marriage is a complex and thorny
one that has suddenly been
thrust into the spotlight, both in
US, and our own country.

This is an issue that I personal-
ly have had a lot of trouble
wrestling with, in my own mind.
I am not a religious person by
any stretch of the imagination,
and yet at the same time I have
great admiration for the
Christian principles upon which
Western society is based.
Marriage, as we understand it
today, is one such institution that
has been largely spawned from
our Christian heritage. Unlike
many other cultures, both
ancient and contemporary, ours
has not been a society that has
encouraged such things as
polygamy, infidelity, or even

 

J.J. McCullough

1!
'
'
'
1!
'
'
1!
'
'
J
'
1
'
'
'
1!
1!
'
'
'
'
'
'
1!
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1!
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
!
'
1!
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
1!
!
'
'
'
'
1
'
'
'
'
'
'

divorce. In our culture, the idea
of a strong family is paramount.
Two loving parents, a mother
and a father, are able to create a
constructive and positive envi-
ronment, especially when chil-
dren are involved. A male father
and a female mother are able to |
offer parental skills
that are fundamental-
ly unique to their

gender. I have no Our activist
doubt that in my judges seem
own life, my mother bi /

has taught me to ave
immeasurable already
amounts about

women, not necessar-
ily by direct instruc-
tion, but rather by
her very presence as a

female figure in my marriages
daily life.

Of course, | am | s@@eeen GF
well aware that such later.

an idealized vision of

family life, while not uncom-
mon, is simply no longer a reali-
ty for many families in North
America. Divorce is rampant,
partners are no longer faithful,
and abuse plagues many couples.
However, with this being said, is
the solution to therefore admit
that marriage in the traditional
sense has failed? Should we no
longer try? There should be no
denying that there are many very
loving single-parent families, nor
should it be denied that homo-
sexual couples can provide excel-
lent families for orphaned or
abandoned children in desperate
need of guardianship. But there
will always be exceptions.
Traditional marriage, as a man-
woman union holds a special

In Canada,

decided that
our country —
will have gay ‘

place in our history and society,
as a symbol of gender coopera-
tion, procreation, and child rais-
ing. It is much more than a sim-
ple economic partnership, and as
such deserves to be elevated to a
degree that only a special title
can grant. That title is “mar-

'

'

'
Coe
ie
'

'

t

&

riage.” Gay couples should be :
granted full legal partnerships
with each other, and should have !
“civil unions” recognized by the
state. But they should not have |
marriage, for marriage is an insti- t
tution that is larger than govern-
ment, it is an institution of
humanity.

That is my one side thinking.
The other side of me realizes that
the very sacred nature of mar-
riage as an institution is exactly
what many homosexuals desire.
Andrew Sullivan is a well-known
American columnist who is both
gay, and a strong conservative.
I’ve been reading his articles on
the issue of gay marriage, and he
makes a powerful case. He speaks

'
\
i
'
'
of how denying marriage to gays !

  

denies them a “home” and a
strong structural and moral insti-
tution. It creates a void in their
life that perpetuates a cycle of
depression, nihilism, and isola-
tion. Many gay people have
many sexual partners, never set-
tling. Is this because gays are a
fundamentally more
deviant and immoral
people, or because they
know that this is the
role society has con-
strained them to? A
“civil union” may
appease some, but to
many other gays it is
simply a continuing
symbol that they are
second-class _ people
who must be kept “sep-
arate but equal” lest
they “impure” straight
society. Many argue
that if marriage
“= indeed in trouble, due
to the unpleasant realities I men-
tioned above, it seems rather

is

unproductive to encourage an
entire group of people to remain
promiscuous and unattached.
Marriage has a theme of finaliza-
tion to it, symbolized by that
famous, though now largely
ignored phrase, “till death do you
part.” Gay people are not going
away, and we as a society are real-
izing that gays live lives just like
our own. I have great disdain for
the various radical leftist groups
that have attempted to politicize
homosexuality. Such efforts are
confusing and patronizing, and
cause great stress to gays whose
views deviate from leftist agen-
das, such as conservatives like
Mr. Sullivan. The sooner gays are

integrated into mainstream soci-
ety, the better. Giving marriage
to gays may help society get over
its inherent fear of the “weird-
ness” of homosexuals, and finally
accept them as our equals.

In Canada, our activist judges
seem to have already decided
that our country will have gay
marriages sooner or later. This is
becoming such an accepted reali-
ty that even our nominally “con-
servative” politicians are no
longer putting up much of a
fight. In the US, however, where
national laws are usually made in
a much more lengthy and demo-
cratic fashion, the future of gay
marriages remains uncertain.
Trying to make a constitutional
amendment on the issue is flat-
out stupid, however, for reasons
that go beyond what one thinks
of homosexual marriage. A con-
stitution is not something to be
edited on spur of the moment
issues such as this. Banning alco-
hol was a spur-of-the-moment
urge, and the amendments that
prohibited, and then quickly un-
prohibited alcohol remain a
Bloch on that great American
document’s reputation.

I usually support George W.
Bush, and the conservative agen-
da he preaches. However, in this
current debate, I am not so sure.
Lacking the President's religious
perspective, I can only see homo-
sexuality as an inescapable reality
of our society, and marriage as a
fundamental, but much
maligned, institution. As to
exactly how, when, and why the
two should meet, I must confess,
I do not yet know.

 

Peas) (elie re Sy

“sort of"
conservative
item ca] (|
on style

Flite Mele liitelg
but little on
substance?

http://www. filibustercartoons.com

~ #8

LOSERS

 

Gee, how can
,) Cae eM Let -tt1 +) har] id

http://www.-otherpress.ca

Howard Dean
Concession Speech
er) od

 

 

4

Cartoon by J.J. McCullough

 

Page 9