RECENT  POSTS:  » Apple CEO gives 'substantial' sum to HRC's southern state project; may or may not have used ApplePay » Conservative proposes new way for vendors to tell gay customers they don't care for them » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too » FRC prays to take LGBT Americans out of nondiscrimination law » In lieu of typing 'Look how desperate we are' over and over again, NOM president wrote this instead  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/29/2012

Neither love nor kids are premarital reqs.; MN For Marriage debates both anyway

by Jeremy Hooper

It's been interesting to see the way "protect marriage" groups have, over the past few years, dedicated time and column inches to making love sound like a ridiculous reason for marriage. I mean, yes, everyone knows that the purpose of marriage extends beyond love, and that romantic attraction itself is not a pre-marital requirement. But still, most people have a pretty strong mental picture of marriage—one that certainly puts love toward (if not at) the top of the list of reasons for two people to come together in union.

But in the fury to make the non-requirement of reproduction seem like the only reason marriage exists, various voices of inequality have worked overtime 201210291041 knocking love as some hokey, hippy-dippy reason for a couple to marry. Here's the latest from Minnesota For Marriage's spokesperson, Autumn Leva:

SNIP: Opponents of the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment are running a television advertisement in which an actor states, "Love is bigger than government."

Well, as much as marriage amendment supporters and opponents disagree, this is -- finally -- something on which we can both agree. Love is absolutely bigger than government.

That is precisely why no government system offers a "license to love."


Marriage is a special relationship defined as the union of one man and one woman because it provides a stable environment in which men and women commit not only to each other, but also to any potentialchildren born from their union. Marriage is the only institution we have that connects children to the people who brought them into the world. For anyone who may have missed "the talk" growing up, the male-female bodily union is the only type of union that can create new life for the propagation of our species.
Thus, the relationship between a man and a woman is unique. When men and women agree to commit to themselves and any children they bear, this provides a stable family unit in our society that ensures the care and upbringing of the kids involved.

FULL PIECE: Autumn Leva: Minnesotans don't need a 'license to love' [TwinCities.com]

LGBT people of course have families. My (legally-wedded) husband and I are in the adoption process right now. We're thankful that our state affords us the legal contract that secures our loving bond and protects our growing family, and we are confident that the federal government is moving in the right direction.

But that said, the simple fact is that children are no more of nuptial requirement than is love. And if people like Autumn want children to be a marital requirement, then *THAT* is the change they need to start seeking. Knocking gay people's unions is not going to change the non-procreative reality of the civil marriage contract. Neither is knocking love.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails