How about that?

At the Saddleback debate, Barack Obama defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. That was a surprise. He said he did not support same sex marriages but is ok with Civil Unions. Obama and I actually agree on something. Legal agreements between two adults are fine with me as long as we don’t redefine Marriage. I like tradition and I like words to mean what they were intended to mean. If we are going to create a new legal institution, fine, just give it its own unique terminology such as Civil Union that doesn’t detract from, distract from, or dilute the solemn institution of Marriage. To me it’s a lot like interpreting the Constitution. It says what it says. You should strictly interpret it. It is not a living and breathing document you can twist to suit your political/personal agenda. If you don’t like the Constitution, you don’t simply redefine it, you amend it. The difference between Obama and myself is that you can just see that it was very painful for him to answer the question this way since he secretly does support gay marriage. He just knows he can’t get elected saying that.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post meta

This entry was written by Scott Allan and posted on August 19, 2008 and filed under politics. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment(Latest is displayed first) or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Share with others

6 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

Scott said: If we are going to create a new legal institution, fine, just give it its own unique terminology such as Civil Union that doesn’t detract from, distract from, or dilute the solemn institution of Marriage.

I’m married and I don’t think it would take anything away from my marriage – how would it affect yours?

1. Silke on August 20th, 2008 at 6:05 am
It won’t detract from an individual marriage, its the institution of marriage that it affects because it changes the entire concept and definition of what marriage and family are. Most of the country sees the family unit headed by a father and mother to be the cornerstone of our society. Also most would argue that a child that is raised in a traditional household have the best chance at being well adjusted. I know you are going to argue with this and probably show me some obscure study of how children of gay couples are all over-achieving rocket scientists, but I’m just pointing out what most people view to be common sense. Children in gay families will face many challenges. Pretending they won’t doesn’t make it so. They also will not have a model of father and mother relationship. I think it’s easy to see what happens to families when a father or mother is absent. People do not want to see our society drift away from the traditional family unit.

2. Scott Allan on August 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Are you disappointed in Obama or do you agree with me that he really doesn’t believe what he says?

3. Scott Allan on August 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Scott, you support civil unions so apparently you don’t object to loving couples making a commitment to each other under the law and starting families.

Yes, I’m disappointed in Obama’s answer but I think he’s being sincere.

4. Silke on August 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I am ok with 2 people entering a binding legal arrangement for such purposes as health care etc. I don’t really like the idea of government recognizing it as a familial relationship on the level of marriage, but I’m willing to deal with it because I don’t like the idea of people not being able to pass on death benefits or make health care decisions for people they care about. I guess that’s why I like calling it a civil union rather than marriage. You can see it’s a slippery slope and why people oppose civil unions altogether. Once you allow one arrangement where would it end? Ok for health care and death benefits, but not ok for adoption? When do we say one sort of relationship can be recognized and others cannot? Gay marriage does not damage society but polygamy does? Will time prove that we are all unjustly prejudiced against polygamists as well?

I don’t think it’s the ideal situation for children either. Of course you can’t prevent people from naturally having their own children. Is it responsible for them to do so? “That decision is above my pay grade” It would seem to me that given the choice, people would be thankful they were born than not born no matter who their parents are. As for adoption, I suppose having gay parents are better than having no parents, but I believe it would be in the child’s interest to try and place them in a traditional family first if possible.

5. Scott Allan on August 23rd, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Scott said: Gay marriage does not damage society but polygamy does?

Yes, the two are not equivalent. Polygamous relationships ensure inequality among the partners and the legal standing of those in the relationship are unclear (for instance who makes the life-or-death decision, etc.) There is no slippery slope here.

In the end, whether you call it marriage or not, same-sex couples are committing to each other and starting families. You believe the state should legally recognize those relationships yet you don’t want society to equate it with your own marriage – you want to create a separate category all for the sake of “tradition.” I personally think gay couples are just as capable of creating a loving family as any heterosexual couple. Pretending these relationships don’t exist no more protects the institution of marriage than pretending divorce doesn’t exist.

6. Silke on August 24th, 2008 at 7:47 am