Friday, February 24, 2012

Opinion:    “Same-sex marriage will not reduce the number of divorces but will remove what gives marriage institutional structure. We should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it."



Fact:   The United States of America is a radical social experiment. The reason gay marriage has been found constitutional in some states is not because of “reactionary activist judges”, it's because these judges have looked at their constitutions and concluded that there is no compelling public interest in denying these rights. This is not about extending a right. It's about ending the arbitrary denial of an already existing right. The government has no duty to strengthen the institution of marriage, and nothing about same-sex marriage would prevent private citizens and groups from promoting marriage in any ways they think important.

That being said, most of the civil rights we take for granted now were considered radical when first proposed. But they could only be called 'social experiments' by those who believe it is experimentation to give women the right to vote, or to liberate enslaved black people.

But, in terms of experimentation, marriage has been subjected to it for centuries, as values and laws have changed. An experiment is the evaluation of the application of variables against a control. There is no marriage 'control', because marriage has thousands of different meanings all over the world, and hundreds of meanings in the USA, all different today than they were 100 years ago. An experiment under these conditions would be pointless. Data are being generated daily on the steady decline of marriages in the general population, starting long before the first same-sex marriage, and there are many theories about cause and effect. Bad economies are known to reduce marriages. But long-term global data, analyzed and controlled as rigorously as possible, show no correlation between gay marriage and reduced total marriages. Any other conclusion would be counter-intuitive as well: marriage doesn’t rely on exclusivity for strength (“Well, if they let those people get married then it has no value to me.”)

State Representative Paul Stam has worried recently about the “depreciation” of marriage if this amendment fails. The real depreciation of the institution comes from the use of rhetoric like this which equates marriage with club membership and ignores the appreciation resulting from millions of people fighting for the right.

As many on the television program Antiques Roadshow are announcing when they say, “I don’t care what it’s worth, it’s priceless to me,” depreciation is only a concern when comparing value to what others think. If you decide not to engage in something because others say it has no value, then you are responsible for the depreciation.
--

No comments:

Post a Comment