It does not seem like much of a title, but I assure you it is important and I ask you to remember “2” as you read this piece. I am not writing to convince you to adopt a certain point of view. I only ask that your point of view be a thoughtful one and I hope this piece will give you something about which to think.
Rand Paul and too many other Republicans are now promoting the notion that, in order to secure the youth vote, we must abandon any reservations we may harbor about ‘gay marriage.’ I am not sure why we are supposed to desire having our policy positions set by people with the life experience and social skills of eight year olds, but apparently we are. Arguments like, ‘it will lead to polygamy’ and ‘men will be marrying their crock pots and farm animals,’ we are told, are too hyperbolic. But the real question here is ‘are there any standards and do they make any sense?”
The counter argument we always hear is, “When two people love each other, nothing should prevent them from getting married.” This is an emotional argument meant to tug at the heart strings but beyond that it is lacking in substance and understanding. The inability to make or even understand distinctions is a chronic condition on the left. Why is it always, ‘When two people love each other?’ In this case, is the number two meaningful or whimsical? Why cannot the isolationist marry him or herself? Self love is not uncommon and within reasonable limits it is personally and socially beneficial. Why cannot the members of the local Kiwanis club all marry each other? Would this not bring the whole organization together in a meaningful way?
Traditional marriage brings together one member from each gender, coincidentally, the left would have you believe, the exact recipe for bringing forth new life. The bringing forth of new life is why, in many religious traditions, it is referred to not as just marriage, but as Holy matrimony. In spite of what you may have experienced in San Francisco, there are only two genders. Gender distinction is where the number two comes from in traditional marriage. The number 2 in this case is meaningful. Two people, one of each gender, are required to bring forth new life. In the traditional marriage, the couple is brought together “in the sight of God” to pledge fidelity “until death do they part.” This construct is obviously to provide a stable home with both a masculine and a feminine influence for any resulting children. There is a lot going on here. A family is created and the number two is essential to its success.
Now consider the homosexual relationship. In this relationship, two men, or for that matter any number of men, no matter how hard they try, will never bring forth new life. I know–it’s sad. But buck up; be a man. What is the significance of ‘2’ in this case? No number of men by themselves will ever bring forth new life. The number two is capricious and just a holdover from the antiquated notion of traditional marriage and should not be imposed on gay people because the nature of their relationship is so fundamentally different. The same is of course true for any number of women. Certainly it is obvious that the restriction of two would have to be dropped from gay marriage. But if the restriction of ‘2’ were dropped from gay marriage, fairness would require that it be dropped from traditional marriage as well. Oops! The polygamy argument isn’t just hyperbole.
The answer to this conundrum is found in the realization that the relationship of ‘gays’ is fundamentally different from that of heterosexual couples. If this relationship is so fundamentally different, why do we think we have to use the same device to give them legal standing? Trying to do so creates many more problems than it solves. We have not yet made this mistake and I cannot for the life of me figure out why we would want to do so.
Over the decades, I have met a number of good and really bright ‘log cabin’ Republicans. There are legitimate issues in this community and I think we should address them. Civil union resolves this issue without creating a virtual Pandora’s Box of new problems. Civil union provides structure which is beneficial to society. Civil union recognizes that the relationship between heterosexual couples is fundamentally different.
Consider the following obvious examples: A heterosexual brother and sister are prohibited from marriage. This is done for the protection of the gene pool. Should homosexual brothers be prevented from a civil union? Should homosexual sisters? What sense would this restriction make? In these examples there is no gene pool to protect. The same prohibition exists for a child marrying his mother or her father and for the same reason. Aside from the creepiness, there is no equal concern if the parent/child relationship is homosexual in nature. In all these examples we assume all parties have reached the age of consent. However, these examples just underscore the fundamentally different nature of the heterosexual/homosexual relationship.
The constant wailing about ‘marriage equality’ is a red herring. There is no equality between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. This is just a thinly veiled assault on Western values. I hope you will think about the number ‘2’ because apparently, no Republican in office is capable of making this simple argument. Feel free to send this article to your Senators and Representative. It is high time we stopped trying to stuff this square peg into this round hole.