Well, since everybody and his cow in the blogosphere are talking about Bush’s announced support for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between heteros, I’ll jump in with a few comments.
Con: I think neither government nor the church should be in the business of legislating anthropology. The church’s administration of marriage is a Medieval innovation with no basis in scripture. The only reason I can think of for government’s interest in marriage is for tax purposes. One can claim dependents who bear you no familial relationship, so why should the government care whom you claim as a domestic partner?
Pro: At least Bush is consistent in applying his positions, not bending to every whim of the electorate. Except . . . in this case the majority of the electorate is against gay marriage, so Bush gets it both ways. Taking the question to the legislature rather than the courts is the right way to go, although I can’t really imagine that the founders intended the constitution to define anthropology.
Also, I’ll ask the same question many in the blogosphere are asking: why isn’t anyone criticising Kerry, whose position on the matter is essentially the same as Bush’s?
I just read this article, that I founf through a Norwegian blog: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp
The main argument is so ludicrous it is not even funny! His analysis of Scandinavian conditions is also extremely bias and sometimes downright wrong (he obviously don’t know what team handball is, for one). The biggest threat to marriage is not gay marriages, but divorce and co-habitaion. I have not decided my own stand on this issue yet, but I know that using arguments like this really hurts the conservative side. In answering to Gordon’s analysis, however, I want to say that the signal effect of the law is strong, making it an interest of the government to have legislation regarding marriage. But as for the States, I think a better way of strenghtening marriage would be to have a certain minimal time of seperation, like in Canada and Norway. Not that helps in Scandinavia… :)
Hey Vera!
I agree with you that the “threat to marriage” is more the prevalance of divorce than gay marriage.
But I still don’t think that the government should legislate anthropology. But then I’m distressingly libertarian about these things.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the law should only mention incest/consanguinity, i.e. biological factors, rather than cultural.