Uncle Roger's Notebooks of Daily Life

I Now Pronounce You...

One of the common (and specious) arguments offered by opponents of marriage equality is that if you change the legal definition of marriage to allow two men or two women to marry, then, surely, people will start marrying dogs or horses or sheep, followed quickly by marriages to trucks, bicycles, etc.

Recently, the state of Massachusetts sued the federal government over the Defense of Marriage act, arguing that the law unfairly excludes some Massachusetts residents from "critically important rights and protections based on marital status." Whether or not the arguments have any validity, this case may be the one that presents the issue marriage equality on the desk of the Supreme Court once and for all. (Hey, Obama! Now would be a good time to add some more justices! I'm just sayin'.)

In any case, there was the expected discussion attached to the article I read and, of course, the bestiality argument came up. "Ok I do not have a problem with who marries who," wrote Ed, "but to change the meaning of a union leaves the door open to a person who loves their dog ,goat, sheep, whatever. Once you redefine one then anything can become a union , How about a car ,bike."

Never mind the fact that marriage is a contract and none of those examples have the mental capacity or legal standing to enter into any sort of contract, marriage or otherwise. Another commenter, Stacey, asked "Why do the arguments invariably head straight to bestiality? So absurd, and so offensive."

I responded to Stacey with a revelation I'd had upon reading Ed's comment: "Because guys like ed cannot see the difference between women (whom they can and do marry) and goats, sheep, etc. (that they cannot marry). They view women as pets and as property, not as equals. Therefore, in their eyes, if you change the law such that 'women' are not the only 'objects' that can be married, then it opens the door to marrying other 'objects'. Very sad."

People like Ed do not see a distinction between women and chattel. Once upon a time, women were pretty much chattel, but most of us have evolved beyond that. Not so Ed and his ilk. This means that, without the identification of specific items (women), any such item could be married. To them, marriage equals ownership -- or perhaps ownership "with benefits".

To Ed, you can't say that marriage is a contract between two equals because, in his mind, that would exclude women, leaving only the option of marrying a man -- perhaps inspiring other specious arguments including that homosexuality would be forced on straight people and that gay marriage would undermine the sanctity of traditional marriages. Ed doesn't want to allow marriage to any type of property and he doesn't want to exclude a specific type of property, so marriage must be defined explicitly as being a union of a man and (only) a woman.

But marriage is ultimately about love and mutual respect between people, be they men or women. If you can't tell the difference between a person and a barnyard animal, you've got bigger problems than marriage equality.

Related Links Boston Globe: Mass. sues over Defense of Marriage Act

[ Posted: 02:00 | home | print ]