BARR ON FMA: Elizabeth Marquardt

[Elizabeth is an affiliate scholar at the Institute for American Values, who often blogs on their fascinating weblog on marriage, here.]

Bob Barr doesn’t seem to recognize that marriage--unlike a business contract--is much more than just a signed agreement between two people or entities. It is an ontological shift in identity that cannot and must not be denied by anyone, anywhere. It is naïve to think that some states could recognize same sex marriage without challenges eventually being successful that require other states to recognize those marriages. (If for no other reason that heterosexual philanderers would love to able to argue that if gays can be married in some states but not others, then they should not have to be legally married in every state they go. To parrot the argument of gay rights advocates, why should the sex of the person you're having sex with make any difference in how your relationship is treated?)

Personally, I do not support a constitutional amendment on marriage. What I do support is an open and lengthy national discussion on the meaning of marriage, on why it is much more than just a nice affirmation of love between two people and set of legal goodies. Only as a result of that discussion would otherwise well-informed people like Bob Barr understand that marriage isn’t just a private arrangement that each state can decide for itself without significant social turmoil resulting.



posted by maggie at 1:28 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home