 |
|
Justin
Breurer
Opinion
Editor
|
The Massachusetts state supreme court recently ruled to overturn
the ban on gay marriages. This is a colossal moment in deciding what
we, the people of the United States, want the future of our culture
to evolve or mutate into.
There are those of religious upbringing who automatically call this
ruling a perversion, an abomination in the eyes of God. They claim
the only union recognized as good and holy is one between man and
woman. This belief has recently been called into question with the
acceptance of a gay bishop in the Episcopalian church. There is also
the issue of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church which has made
it into the news, like the abuse of nuns and children. These media
headlines support the decline of religious values, which in turn calls
into question the origin and posterity of traditional marriage values
and beliefs.
Those against gay marriage say that the joining of man and woman
is holy, and marriage is the recognition of this holy union. And to
a large part, I agree with this thought. Man and woman come together
to create new life, a miracle regardless of faith, and a bond that
forms our societies and may very well be one of the root causes for
our propensity for social interaction.
I do disagree, however, with the idea that mankind decides what is
holy and what is not. If those against gay marriage use religion as
an argument, I feel that they defeat their own argument. Man and woman
creating new life is a fact of life, inarguable. No matter what we
call it— marriage or whatever —man and woman create new
life. This union is holy and should be venerated, not because we give
it a name or make it a societal institution, but because of the very
nature of what we are.
 |
|
by Justin Breuer - The Metropolitan
|
To my mind, this leads us to a very simple conclusion: the only thing
we’re talking about when it comes to the opposition of gay marriage
is the family unit. The family unit is made up of father, mother and
children. This unit has formed our society and culture. It may also
be a societal control mechanism, but only to establish civilized societies.
The real argument, then, is whether or not gay marriage will destroy
the family unit dynamic. It’s a possibility, but I like to think
not. If gay parents wish to adopt a child in order to form a family,
one would think the goal of long-term partnership is what provided
for this wish. There is an assumption that gay couples will not form
families and therefore not be a credible contributor to the family
unit dynamic our culture relies on. The assumption is rather bold
considering the divorce rate of couples who are same sex and the assumption
is nothing more than that, an assumption. We all know the saying about
what happens when you assume…
Those who are proponents of gay marriage emphasize the need for gay
couples to be eligible for all the benefits a marriage status conveys.
From what I understand, this includes the transfer of wealth upon
death, allowing visitation rights during hospitalization and it qualifies
the couple for greater adoption opportunities.
The overturning of the gay ban is only on the state level and only
in the civil court. Religions need not support a gay marriage, but
the state must provide equal rights to gay couples choosing to live
their lives together, ‘till death do they part.
|
