Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that gays have the right to marry in all 50 states, that marriage is a fundamental right, that love and commitment win. I admit, I celebrated. It was a landmark decision. It was a controversial decision. It was a decision a long time in the making.
At the risk of oversimplification, those opposed to the decision suggest that allowing gays to marry undermines the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. They argue, using slippery slope logic, that allowing men to marry men or women to marry women will lead to future breakdowns in the sanctity of marriage: polygamy, bestiality, bigamy...
At the risk of oversimplification, those in favor of the decision believe that all Americans, regardless of whom they love, should have the social, financial, and political benefits of marriage. They argue that Americans, regardless of whom they love, are entitled to these basic rights. They also cite statistics (usually results from studies of heterosexual marriages) that reveal higher success rates for married couples than co-habitating couples.
I must admit, I am a bit puzzled by the controversy. I cannot understand the argument that allowing gays to marry somehow undermines or even affects in some small way my own heterosexual marriage. I don't see it. My marriage is a personal commitment made public between me and my husband, but I'm not sure it impacts society (or anyone else's marriage for that matter).
Maybe it comes down to definitions. I believe in family, and for many years we as a nation have re-made definitions of family as we have talked about and celebrated variety in family make-up. That attitude, of course, has a history of controversy as well. Traditional families, defined as husband, wife, and 2-point-something children, were for many years (and maybe in some circles still today) sacrosanct. But over time, that traditional definition of family became insufficient as a way to define the way many Americans actually live. It almost became taboo to suggest that there is only one kind of family, that those groups connected by blood and commitment and love (regardless of make up) were somehow less significant or valuable than "traditional" families.
I truly believe that this more inclusive definition of family strengthens the family unit in a way that also strengthens society. Recognizing commitment, love, choice, and responsibility in all its variety cements those values; it strengthens the value of family.
For me, marriage is fundamentally a social construct designed to support family. Family is the more significant term. Families are the bedrock of the nation; families are the fundamental unit that must be supported and celebrated. If recognizing gay marriage provides structure to solidify and strengthen some families, then it is good and necessary. Would anyone dare argue that recognizing a gay family unit would somehow weaken single-parent, traditional, multigenerational, childless, child-filled, his/her/ours, and/or adopted families? Would anyone argue today that including gays in the makeup of family would lead to crazy new definitions of family that included animals (oh wait, I think some people already claim pets as part of the family).
Marriage is a legal contract that binds two people who choose commitment; family is a group of people who choose to love and support and care for each other through the ups and downs of life. Marriage doesn't necessarily create family, and family doesn't necessarily need marriage.
If I have to choose to defend one of the two: I choose family. I believe in family, and as such I believe in any marriage that strengthens and potentially supports family.
Written 26 July 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment