More Gay Marriage

One of my three readers sent me an email regarding my recent rant on gay marraige:

How about people over 55?  They shouldn't be allowed to marry, either, if marriage is about propagation of the species.  And what about couples who don't have children?  They should certainly not be allowed to marry!  What do we do with them?  Are gays God's little joke or do they just not exist?  Are the people that we don't like just not counted in God's list of creations? 

I've wondered the same and it could have affected my marriage.

Throughout the years while Jennifer and I were trying to conceive this has struck close to home. We were wed by a judge and no religion was involved, yet Minnesota issued us a "Marriage Certificate", not a "Civil Union Certificate", and Minnesota for Marriage is trying to change state law, not church law. So I did a little pointing and clicking and thinking and here's what I've found.

If you go to Minnesota for Marriage's (MfM) website (http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/myths-facts/) they address the issue of whether infertile couples should be allowed to marry, with the following statement:

The aspect of the sex relationship that makes the couple's relationship suitable to marriage is its potential for procreation.

Just to make sure we're on the same page regarding what 'potential' means, this is the definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary:

existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality

Women who have entered menopause, had a hysterectomy, ovaries removed, etc. have no potential for conceiving a child. Nor do men who have been "snipped" or had their testicles removed or problems with their sperm. There is no potential for procreation. There is no disagreement on this issue, and their statement thus implies that if you can't procreate, you shouldn't be married.

Minnesota for Marriage talking point goes on to state the following:

It does not matter, then, if spouses do not intend to have children or even if factors such as infertility might prevent conception from occurring.

This is where the fuzzy logic starts. What doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that they can't procreate, they can still be married? Isn't that completely counter to their previous statement? No matter how much I warp my mind, as long as I maintain a minimal grasp on logic I am unable to see how these statements can possibly be consistent with this group's message that gays can't have kids and therefore can't marry, but heterosexual couples who can't have kids can marry.

I think the intent of that statement was to make their point that even if couples are infertile, as long as the parts fit together it's OK for them to remain married. But that's not what those sentences actually say.

In their talking point they close with this sentence:

Whatever one thinks of same-sex unions, they are not remotely procreative in nature and calling them "marriage" undermines the true meaning of the marriage relationship, damaging this great social institution.

Let's change one word - the logic remains the same:

Whatever one thinks of infertile mixed-sex unions, they are not remotely procreative in nature and calling them "marriage" undermines the true meaning of the marriage relationship, damaging this great social institution.

From all of this, the only logical and consistent message this group has, is that people who can't have children should not be allowed to marry. Couples who choose not to have children, will still be allowed to marry.

My personal (and cynical) opinion is that Minnesota for Marriage is trying to pull the wool over voter's eyes. They know that to come out and say they oppose all infertile marriages would significantly erode their (waning) support. Crafting illogical gibberish to try to explain that they support marriage for infertile mixed-sex couples but not infertile gay couples is a political calculation which will only appeal to those who have already decided that they are against gay marriage for other reasons. They have already made up their minds and they will accept illogical gibberish if it supports their decision.

I'm not done yet.

Note the statement:

... the true meaning of the marriage relationship ...

So, what is the true meaning of the marriage relationship? Raising children? Or two adults who love each other making a public and legal commitment? Or one man and one woman who love each other making a public and legal commitment? This is where the core of the issue really lies.

They make the claim that gay marriage will somehow damage mixed-sex marriages. For anyone who is married and feels their marriage will be damaged because your gay neighbors get married then please come forwards and explain why. We hear trite statements like "they are gross", "they are sinful", "by restricting who can marry, it will be more valuable", but never "I will love my spouse less if those two girls get married".

It is my opinion that by allowing more people to enter a legally committed monogamous relationship, not only will the institution of marriage be strengthened, it also improves the environments in which children are raised. I have yet to hear a coherent argument that the institution of marriage is strengthened by restricting it to fewer people.

When will my political rants end and my motorcycle and travel articles resume? First it must stop snowing. Today is May 1st and we're expecting 6-9 inches of snow before tomorrow.