Part-Time Pundit

Gay Marriage Debate Talk: My Opening Statement

The following was my opening statement at the gay marriage panel discussion that took place last week on campus. One thing to note, the words “form” and “matter” are also terms used theologically to determine the validity of sacraments and they have a particular meaning in the Sacrament of Matrimony. I, however, define these terms differently for the purpose of the debate to construct a secular and social institution. In sort, those who are theologically minded might notice I’m making these words mean something else but the reality is that I’m talking about marriage as a social institution instead of the Sacramental event. Hope this makes sense. I explicitly avoided the religious angle because I think it would have just been a discussion stopper, for one. “Seperation of Church and State” and all that. I stick with a philosophic view, so I try to form philosophic structures to defend it where people can’t hide behind the wall of seperation. That, and I think, that if the law is going to recognize something and provide benefits, there should be some public good involved. The difference is, I think marriage properly constructed provides that public good, whereas what we have now does not.

The intention of setting this up the way I did was to get people to think. It seems Libertarian, but it’s not. In short, I played a gamble. By saying that we either need to enunciate a public good or get rid of the institution, I’m banking the most people intuitively think we need to keep the institution, so they look for a public good. I think from the response, the thought experiment worked and got a few people thinking.

======
I would first like to take this opportunity to thank you for coming tonight. So often in political discourse, warring camps spend so much time attacking each other that rarely do they listen to what others have to say. I believe a free society requires open and free discussion so that when we inevitably disagree on issues, we know what we are disagreeing with. I hope tonight’s civil discourse will help bridge the gap between these ideas so that even though we may disagree, we can still appreciate that we all are essential components of this free society.

In part, arising from this new idea on sexuality, and in part, arising out of other causes, divorce became and increasing problem. While the law previously made it difficult to get a divorce, this has lead to many couples simply lying or gaming the courts to get what they want. Starting in 1969, California adopted so-called no-fault divorces in which couples could separate without proving someone at “fault” (for instance, adultery, abuse, etc). By 1985, all states had such laws.
It is common in this debate to refer to marriage as a contract. However, marriage as it is currently practiced it is something quite less than a contract. If the marriage “contract” can be, without penalty, unilaterally breached by one party, often with the party gaining in the transaction, it can hardly be considered a contract. Contracts are binding; marriage as it is practiced is at best a short-term economic gentlemen’s agreement. (Show divorce packet). This is the form to petition for divorce, in many cases, this is all it takes in this county. 7 pages. It is easier to get divorced in some ways than it is to get married. If all it takes is one seven page packet of paper to get divorced, how can marriage be considered committed? Much less life-long?
With all of these innovations, the matter of marriage has become essentially non-existent. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on gay marriage, no one blinked when they suggested that sex was no longer even an essential part of marriage. What is left of marriage after being ravaged by these innovations is little more than a temporary property sharing arrangement. Society behaves as if this is true, yet all the sudden “finds” meaning when gay marriage is involved. This arbitrariness is discrimination.
The question we are faced with now is not whether to allow gay marriage or not, but why we publicly recognize marriage in the first place. If it is merely a private organization of property, there is no reason to exclude gay couples from it. However, there is also no reason to recognize it at all. If a public good cannot be enunciated from what marriage has become, it should not be publicly supported.
Marriages have had public benefit in the past precisely because of their procreativity. Well-adjusted and well-reared children are of immense value to any society, without them we simply become articles of interest to historians and anthropologists, not a living and thriving society. While the matter may be drained from marriage, it can still be restored. By draining the form from marriage also, making marriage “anything you want it to be”, it deconstructs marriage irrevocably. It turns a social institution into a meaningless title leaving people wondering why they bother with it. Something that means anything in effect means nothing. If sex and procreation are merely private relationships, why can’t friends be married for the sake of economics? I’ve never heard any explanation why polygamy won’t be legitimized after gay marriage, and I’ve heard more than one supporter of gay marriage concede that it would. I challenge anyone here who will dispute the previous statement to explain to me how we can have gay marriage and not implicitly be forced to accept polygamy or other “forms” of marriage. I sincerely would like to know.
I have not come here to give voice to Fred Phelps of God Hates Fags infamy. I think society’s mistreatment and demonization of homosexuals is discrimination. In a society of strip joints, adultery, porn, and cheap sex, it is absurd to cherry-pick one “Sex crime” while exonerating the others. You can’t insist sex has meaning and then act as if it does not. I think it’s pretty absurd to make attempts at “keeping score” on which practice is more wrong, while erasing our “favorite vices” out of the ledger.
My opposition is not based solely on the matter of gay marriage in a vacuum, but to the series of acts that have tried to remove any meaning from marriage. I hold we shouldn’t even maintain what we have but instead to return to a relationship that does have meaning, a meaning that is best for men, women, children, and society.
The one thing I hope our society can learn is that disagreeing with an idea does not require dehumanization of political opponents. It is possible to disagree and still treat those with whom you disagree with the full measure of human dignity which they are entitled to. I may disagree with gay marriage, but I would gladly, whole-heartedly, and without reservation man the walls against any who would visit physical harm on a fellow citizen simply because of those disagreements. That was the oath I took when trained as a military officer, an oath which I don’t view myself as released from today.
I hope this helps explains my position and look forward to your questions.

April 24th, 2006 Posted by John Bambenek | Politics, Religion, University of Illinois | one comment