Rhetoric and Marriage

As a university English teacher, I am especially interested in the prop 8 conflict because it hinges on the meaning of one word. People often say they hate writing, that it is so hard, that it is so boring–but in many ways, words and their definitions are central to the foundational make-up of our society. The prop 8 debate exposes this importance of language and our responsibility as citizens to be aware of its implications.

I’d like to preface my discussion by saying that I realize this is a very sensitive subject. I hope that my comments will only serve to offer an explanation, another point of view, in this important discussion. My very last intention would be to offend. I feel that every person deserves respect, joy, and love; I see it as the purpose of our lives to extend this to everyone we meet.

I am voting “yes” on proposition 8. People ask me “why” and I have a hard time defending my position. Yes, I am religious. However, I realize religious arguments, while very valid to me personally, are not persuasive to those who may see this as simply a matter of discrimination–an extremely uncomfortable/ugly idea. I don’t want to discriminate against anyone and I have struggled with this same argument.

I’d like to thank my father for the many conversations we’ve had on this topic. He’s been a lawyer for almost 40 years and we’ve had some enlightening discussions.

The idea of changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples is much larger than a simple problem of discrimination. Marriage is a social and religious contract that has not just existed forever, it has always been the foundation of any society.

In our world of wonderful technology, blessed fairness, and awesome knowledge, it is easy to forget that marriage is more than a piece of paper–just vows between two people. Marriage between a man and a woman is “traditional” because that is the way millions of people throughout history have seen it as best defined. As citizens we cannot turn our society away from this critical wisdom.

As individuals in a society, continuing to create a better society, we have the responsibility to sometimes discriminate. Citizens already have to do this all the time. In California we discriminate against smokers: we say they cannot smoke in restaurants, in schools, in buses. Recently, many California cities passed laws to discriminate against those who would drink beer on public beaches. Across California there is a new law discriminating against those who choose to hold phones next to their ears. These are examples where citizens said to themselves, “This behavior does not benefit the whole, something is unsafe, something is potentially destructive.”

We responsibly discriminate against brothers and sisters who wish to marry. We responsibly discriminate against polygamous marriages. We responsibly discriminate against child marriages.

While the consequences for allowing a same-sex definition of marriage are more subtle than the above examples–they exist. The most obvious being, how can we justify the previous marriage discrimination if the traditional definition is changed?

A marriage contract is not just between two people. A congregation is involved, a society is involved, the hope of a future family is involved.

Only kindness, good fortune and friendship should be extended to anyone who chooses a same-sex relationship, however, society cannot approve a same-sex relationship with marriage. The change in definition is unwise and directly counter to a society whose survival depends on the quality of its families as its foundational building blocks.

I know some people will react to this post with anger. That’s okay. This issue is inherently inflammatory. This issue is more important than anger or insults–we need to consider it from all angles, even ones we feel we cannot understand.

I hope to continue discussing the issue throughout the next couple of weeks leading up to the election. Please, if you find something useful here, email this to your friends in California who have a very important decision to make.

For an article with some other very good points:

Protecting Marriage to Protect Children–LA Times