Let None Keep Silent on the Marriage Debate
By Marcella Tardy

Editor's note: Marcella Tardy, a journalist and a member of Miles Jesu, writes a weekly column in a local Chicago newspaper. We applaud Marcella for focusing on the issue of marriage in one of her recently published columns and for defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman in the public square. It was especially courageous of her to speak out in a newspaper that is circulated in a part of Chicago where there is a very high concentration of active homosexuals and where they wield unprecedented clout in political, educational, and social circles.

Just before and after Massachusetts began giving marriage licenses to homosexual couples, our daily press contained a barrage of articles and columns all favorable to the prospect.

It was so one sided it seemed there was an unstoppable tidal wave of opinion signaling the inevitable acceptance of gay marriage nationwide.

That is not the case. A poll conducted in April found that 57 percent of Americans strongly favor a national marriage amendment which would explicitly define that marriage “shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” An additional 10 percent somewhat favor the amendment. A mere 23 percent strongly oppose such an amendment. (See more at www.allianceformarriage.org)

The poll is a reality check against that onslaught in the newspapers. Creating the impression of an avalanche of opinion is a tried and true tactic for demoralizing adversaries.

Name calling has been another tactic, especially on this issue. Ironic, isn’t it, that many of those who wring their hands over “hateful, hurtful” speech, are the same who wantonly fling around the term “bigot.”

Keep in mind: the “sticks and stones” rhyme and let’s not allow mere emotional discomfort to keep us from standing up for truth. Let’s also try to remember that, as wrong as the name-flingers are, they are sincerely wrong. So, let us bear with them and focus instead on protecting marriage from a death blow.

I contacted Maggie Gallagher, a nationally syndicated columnist and president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, whose work I have long admired. I wondered if the re-definition of marriage was merely a matter of semantics.

“The question is does it matter, and the answer is, ‘yes,’ because marriage matters,” Gallagher said.

“Marriage is supposed to help manage sexual relationships so that children end up with mothers and fathers,” said Gallagher. “And it’s a safe harbor for childbearing.”

It’s about a lot more than mere reproduction. “The phrase I like is ‘making the next generation,’ Gallagher said. “(It) implies both the physically making them and socially rearing them.”

What would be the impact of “gay marriage” on “straight” marriage and why does that matter? I’m going to quote Gallagher again (this time from one of her scores of columns on the topic) because she has already said it better than I can:

“Marriage is inherently normative: It is about holding out a certain kind of relationship as a social ideal, especially when there are children involved. Marriage is not simply an artifact of law; neither is it a mere delivery mechanism for a set of legal benefits that might as well be shared more broadly. The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage.”

Many correctly observe that marriage has already been badly damaged by divorce, widespread co-habitation and out of wedlock births. But instituting gay marriage, which is mainly about legitimizing the sexual choices of two consenting adults, does not strengthen the an institution already on precarious footing, but shoves it over the cliff.

Defending marriage for most of us is going to mean writing to our state and federal political representatives – our two senators in Washington D.C. and your congressional representative – and asking them to support the federal marriage amendment. State senators and representatives should be urged to support similar legislation in Springfield. It also means being able to answer, even if only in one’s own mind, the arguments of those who favor legalization of gay marriage:

• It’s about discrimination. Gays should have the right to get married. Yes, and they do. Every adult has the right to marry, which means to be bound to one person of the opposite sex.
  
  
• What is the harm in allowing two people who love each other to legitimize their relationship with marriage?
  The harm is it redefines marriage, which exists for the creation of the next generation and the generations to follow.
  
  
• Homosexual people can obtain children through in vitro fertilization or adoption and should have the benefits of marriage.
  In the real world, many children are being raised in less than ideal situations – their parents are divorced, there is no father in the home, a parent may have died. Children can survive but we should never deliberately aim to deprive a child of one parent or the other, denying him or her either the model of the adult he or she will become, or of the chance to develop affection, comfort with and respect for the opposite sex.
  
  
• It is unfair to deny homosexuals the couples’ benefits that heterosexuals have.
  Personally, I agree with some of this argument, for example, when it comes to access to a loved one in the hospital, co-owning property, and inheritance matters. But it is not necessary to deform the meaning of marriage to accomplish this. It is already possible for two individuals to own property in common. One may also will property to whomsoever one chooses. An individual may legally designate who speaks or acts on his or her behalf in the event of incapacity by designating power of attorney.
  
  On the other hand, raising a family requires financial and personal sacrifices, though it be a labor of love. It is legitimate and wise for a society to give tax benefits to marriage to encourage formation of families.
  
  
• Doesn’t the ruling of the court “prove” that gay marriage is OK.
  No. It was a U.S. Supreme Court that once ruled that Dred Scott and his wife should be returned to slavery and Scott’s former owner.

Find contact information for state and federal elected officials in your telephone directory, or on the Internet, go to http://www.statelocalgov.net/index.cfm for state legislators and your governor. Find your U.S. senators at www.senate.gov and your representatives at www.house.gov.

Reprinted with permission from Lerner Newspapers.

Close window