by F.R. Duplantier
Hasn't the institution of marriage been undermined enough already? Do we really want to risk finishing it off by authorizing same-sex unions?
Nobody takes no for an answer anymore. Who would have thought, just a few years ago, that someone would seriously propose such a thing as same-sex marriage? The very idea is preposterous, like squaring a circle or having your cake and eating it too. By definition, it can't be done. But, when sense and logic no longer pose impediments to man's desires, defend-ing the indefensible becomes a commonplace.
In a recent column in the Washington Post, William Bennett of Empower America argues that "allowing same-sex marriages would do significant, long-term social damage. Recognizing the legal union of gay and lesbian couples would represent a profound change in the meaning and definition of marriage. It is not a step we ought to take," says Bennett. "The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition would stretch it beyond recognition -- and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow."
Bennett reminds us that marriage "is an 'honorable estate' based on the different, complementary nature of men and women -- how they refine, support, encourage, and complete one another. To insist that we maintain this traditional understanding of marriage is not to put others down. It is simply an acknowledgement and celebration of our most precious social act. Nor is this view arbitrary or idiosyncratic. It mirrors the accumulated wisdom of millennia and the teaching of every major religion."
People who reject tradition and religious teaching may yet recognize the numerous pragmatic concerns. "There are other arguments to consider against same-sex marriage -- for example, the signals it would send, and the impact of such signals on the shaping of human sexuality, particularly among the young," observes Bennett. "Societal indifference about heterosexuality and homosexuality would cause a lot of confusion." The legal implications, of course, are virtually limitless. Consider, for example, the impact on our educational system. "The sex education curriculum of public schools would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent," Bennett points out. "Parents who want their children to be taught . . . the privileged status of heterosexual marriage will be portrayed as intolerant bigots." What about adoption? "Homosexual couples will also have equal claim with heterosexual couples in adopting children," says Bennett, even though we know "that it is far better for a child to be raised by a mother and a father than by, say, two male homosexuals."
We should have learned by now not to tinker with time-tested practices, but it appears we haven't learned. "The institution of marriage is already reeling because of the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce, and out-of-wedlock births," warns Bennett. "We have reaped the consequences of its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization."
7800 Bonhomme