Mr. Aboites has missed my point when he says that bigamy, pedophilia, and other relationships cannot be reconsidered as legitimate relationships because they are harmful to other people. While Mr. Aboites and I can probably agree that pedophilia, incest, and other such relationships are harmful to its participants, I think we would be hard pressed, in light of the ruling’s moral relativism, to make such a statement concerning bigamy. If I or the state have no right to make a moral judgment about the union of two consenting adults, what right does Mr. Aboites or the state have to declare that the union of three consenting adults causes “physical and psychological damage” to purported victims. Maybe “pragmatic moralism” isn’t as bad as Mr. Aboites’ tone suggests.
While Mr. Aboites accuses me of defending an “intolerant” position, I would like to point out that in no case do I use derogatory language towards homosexuals. Therefore, I would ask Mr. Aboites to extend religion the same respect. Would you have appreciated it if I had used the term “homosexual nonsense aside,” Mr. Aboites?
Mr. Aboites goes on to claim that I have “outdated attitudes,” but fails to answer the question I put forth: how has traditional marriage become outdated? Is it just because some people believe homosexuals should be able to marry? By that logic, religious conservatives have as much right to teach Creationsim in schools as homosexuals do to marry. Both are minority groups, both wish to change a socialinsitution to fit their own world view.
Concerning Mr. Aboites’ view on government. John Adams and his contemporaries created a system base on the rational principles of government, of which equality was an important prop but not an end to itself. Had Mr. Aboites read the Massachusetts state constitution written by Adams, he wouldhave learned that liberty, piety, and morality were also government props. These were meant to be balanced; in no case was one to be elevated at the expense of the rest. Governments that seek to reach a pure state of liberty, morality or equality tend to be repressive. Communisim believes in total equality, fascim in total “morality,” and anarchists in total liberty. I think Mr. Aboites can agree that these systems are not particularly charming. Furthermore, homosexual Americans are justly protected by the 14th and 15th Amendments of the US Constitution, and any violation of one’s civil rights should be duely punished. Among these are the right to assemble- I would say living together is an assembly. No one is saying homosexuals shouldn’t be able to live together. So how much equality does Mr. Aboites expect?
Marriage is not listed as a consitutional right. By its “religious nonsenese” defintion, marriage is the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God. In civil terms, marriage is a system through which the state rewards individuals with certain priveledges in exchange for the cultivation of new citizens-i.e. children. Churchs marry whom they will; the state must follow the will of the majority and act in its best interest. Whether gay marriage meets either criteria is open to debate.
The argument that gay marriage will raise the dignity of the homosexual community is also flawed. If two consenting adults are in love, truly in love, what does it matter to them if I or anyone else consideres them “married” or not. A quiet, respectable private life will bring any couple an inner dignity. This, I believe, is true dignity- a dignity that will reflect outwards into public life and be accepted by most Americans. If this kind of dignity fails to gain acceptance with bigots, what chance does a piece of paper handed down by the government have? If the homosexual community is concerned about its image, there are other areas to work on. Speak out against gay stereotypes on television, against the behavior of the some individuals during Gay Pride parades, and those who engage in high risk behavior. (For the record, I find heterosexuals who engage in such behvior equally offensive).
If marriage is just a word, as the court ruled, then the only meaning it has is the one you give it. Western religion set marriage as the union of men to women. Western leaders, when forming systems of government, incorporated that idea into civic life. As a result, the majority of Americans give marriage an irrevocable civic and religious meaning. This doesn’t mean that homosexuals couples should be denied some benefits, or their dignity. But they shouldn’t be able to rewrite the rules for everyone either.
[I realize that I have just been published, and that many people have probably expressed views on both sides, but I felt the need to respond to Mr. Aboites letter. Thank you for your time.]
Aaron Camire cwhomer@bu.edu 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.
