In 1780, John Adams did not include a definition of marriage as he drafted the state constitution. Two hundred twenty three years later, the Supreme Judicial court ruled that this allowed for gay marriages. The DFP claims “Forbidding loving couples to marry clearly denies them the dignity and equality afforded to all other citizens.” My question to the DFP, and other defenders of this ruling, is this. Do you support bigamists’ right to marry, if the individuals are clearly in love? Do you support the right of a fifteen-year-old and a thirty-five-year old, or the right of a father and a daughter, to marry if they are “loving couples”? Can members of the pedophilic National Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, get married to pre-pubescent boys? (If you think that this is a far-fetched scenario, read NAMBLA’s mission statement). According to this broad ruling, all these groups and individuals potentially have the right to be married in Massachusetts. Gee, sounds like the “degradation” of marriage to me.
I would also like to know how this ruling imparts “dignity and equality” to homosexuals. Has anyone ever said “I look down on homosexuals because they cannot marry?” Even if someone has said this, he or she was wrong. Gay people, like all men and women, can be married to members of the opposute sex-but they make a lifestyle choice for which there is no precedent of marriage. Homosexuals are not barred from marriage because on the basis that they are gay-which would be inequality- but because they make a choice. Equality means equal rights and opportunities, not changing thousands of years Western tradition to accommodate individuals unhappy with the consequences of their choices.
I would like to know exactly by whom, and by what processes, the idea of marriage as a heterosexual union for the raising of children has become obsolete. That you admit it is now obsolete suggests that it was once useful. When, and why, did this traditions become obsolete? Is it simply because some people don’t like the fact they can’t marry due to the way they live? And yes, there have been some traditions in United States’ history which have been bad-but the fact that slavery was an abomination does not justify the “modification” of marriage.
Personally, I don’t care what individuals do behind closed doors as long as other people are not being physically harmed. I don’t care if homosexual couples are given certain benefits of marriage. But the push for gay marriage is about more. It is an effort to push a statistical deviancy into the mainstream, and as hard as creating “further tolerance and acceptance” is, trying to control a social revolution is nearly impossible. You backers of this ruling may succeed, but don’t be surprised when you find bigamists, pedophiles, and incestual couples riding on your coat tails.
Aaron Camire 617-352-7838 CAS ’04
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
