By Tom Quiner
A Quiner’s Diner reader challenged me:
“Who you’re attracted to and how you identify in your gender are not choices, so yes changing your physical sex is most definitely an option.”
The writer, a self-identified Democrat, implies that this is a foundational principle undergirding support for so-called gay marriage.
In fact, it is irrelevant. Let us explore the question, what is right with so-called gay marriage?
“I’m a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
This person acknowledged the sacramental nature of marriage in the eyes of the Christian world.
He acknowledged that the act of marrying makes the union between a man and a woman holy. His remarks pointedly excluded same-sex relationships from marriage.
Barack Obama, who spoke the words above back in 2004, stuck to his guns throughout his 2008 presidential campaign that the definition of marriage should be between a man and a woman. He changed his mind. Here is his rambling explanation why:
“This is something that, you know, [Michelle and I have] talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated…”
So what happened to his convictions? We have several options:
Option One: Mr. Obama was for gay marriage all along and simply said that he was for traditional marriage just to get elected. In other words, he was simply lying.
Option Two: His belief system evolved from one “truth” to another over the past four years, and he now discounts the sacramental nature of traditional marriage.
Option Three: He thinks the political winds are blowing in favor of gay marriage, freeing him to jettison yesterday’s belief system for a new, more popular one today. Opinion polls show growing support for so-called gay marriage. In 2001, only 35% supported it; by 2014, it had grown to 52%.
There may be some truth in all three options.
Whatever, Democrats are certainly comfortable changing their belief system for the sake of political expediency. (See: “The evolution of principle.”) The cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s conversion seems to be his application of the Golden Rule, (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) to the issue of gay marriage.
The suggestion here is that gay marriage is all about equality, that it is a civil rights issue. But it obviously isn’t. Societies throughout history have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman as a mechanism to protect children that could be produced from those unions.
Current traditional marriage laws, for the most part, allow anyone to marry as long as they are of legal age. People with same-sex attractions are allowed to marry, as long as it is someone of the opposite gender. By the same token, people with opposite-sex attractions are prevented by law of marrying someone of the same gender. In other words, marriage laws have been applied equally without discrimination.
Nothing prevents people with same-sex attractions from pursuing a relationship with someone of the same gender. They simply couldn’t have it formally declared a marriage by the state. A lifelong pro-gay liberal Democrat wrote a book about marriage called “The Future of Marriage.” Despite his embrace of much of the gay agenda, David Blankenhorn is adamantly against the notion of gay marriage:
“Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
He says that when people get married simply for the sake of coupling, so to speak, fewer people get married, decreasing the number of heterosexual marriages.
He sites data from Scandinavian countries with a history of gay marriage. The result: more children are born out of wedlock. So what? These kids do worse by about every measurement than kids born into a married family with a mom and a dad.
What’s right with gay marriage? Nothing.