ARE CIVIL UNIONS THE ANSWER? Fred Turner

A reader forwarded this from a column, here, excerpts below. Readers of Andrew Sullivan's Same-Sex Marriage Pro and Con may recognize this as the Camile Paglia argument.

"The honor and beauty of homosexual love is itself as much under attack by academic leftists, neo-Marxist Gramscians and deconstructionists as is the superior nobility and sacrifice of heterosexual love. It is the propaganda in favor of a narcissistic psychological formation that is at fault. Our enemies don't want to make us all homosexuals; they want to make us all so selfish that society can no longer operate by promises and voluntary cooperation, and must be controlled by a tyrannical socialist elite. Homosexuality is just a useful weapon for breaking down the language of commitment and morality -- a way of authorizing evil behavior in general, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

One solution to the whole "gay marriage" problem might be this.

Legal civil union between men and women serves the legitimate interests of the State in two ways: the reproduction and nurture of the population, and the creation of a fundamental social bond that has huge economic and moral benefits. . .

But the word "marriage" is an ancient religious term, and for the State to appropriate it or seek to warp its meaning to cover homosexual unions would a flagrant violation of the separation of church and state -- it would be Newspeak. Thus I would support "civil unions" for gay couples . . .But leave the word "marriage" and its sacramental meanings to civil society and common usage and churches to define."

posted by maggie at 11:50 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home