"Their statement, "Beyond Gay Marriage," was released recently as a full-page ad in the New York Times. Full of candor, the statement's mission is "to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families."
The statement lists several examples of such relationships, among them "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner"--that is, polygamy and polyamory. But this is mild compared to what follows: demand for the legal recognition of "queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households." The language is breathtaking. Queer couples (plural) who jointly create a child? And intentionally raise the child in two (queer) households? Of course, no reference is made to the child's interests or welfare under such an arrangement--only to the fulfillment of adult desires by suitable "creations."
Put simply, the logic of "Beyond Gay Marriage" would result in the abolition of marriage as we know it. The authors tellingly write:
Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal--for some, also a deeply spiritual--choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationships, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.The stated goal of these prominent gay activists is no longer merely the freedom to live as they want. Rather, it is to force you, your family, and the state to recognize and respect their myriad choices."
The article warns not to take this lightly as being presented by extreme fringe elements, as it lists the signatories...
"The people putting out this statement are not fringe figures. The more than 300 signatories include feminist icon Gloria Steinem, NYU sociologist Judith Stacey, Columbia University anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli, Georgetown law professors Robin West and Chai Feldblum, the Rev. Cecil Charles Prescod of Love Makes a Family, Inc., Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, Princeton religion professor Cornel West, writer Barbara Ehrenreich, and Pat Clark, former executive director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation."
So, be aware of the full potential impact of such a social change could mean on our society and our way of life as a country. Just more food for thought.
I suggest reading the entire article when you can.
Posts
1 comment:
Beyond any personal concerns I have with this subject, I think, in general, society needs to be very careful when it considers redesigning itself. The outcome of such experiments in social structure must be carefully evaluated and determined what would be best for that overall society, because rarely, without some massive upheaval, can it overcome errors in judgement.
Redefining marriage, as some in the article have proposed, to include just about any combination of people/peoples who want to get together seems reckless at best. Under that scenario, marriage has no meaning. And the proponents of that have not thought through the long term ramifications to our society if such a change were enacted.
People said that single parenthood was not a big issue, but since then there have been a multitude of issues that have arisen because of it. We have children raised in daycare or with little supervision, relying on media or gangs or what have you to help fill the gaps left in their lives. Something like 70% of men in prison grew up without a father. Did anyone think of that effect from such a change from two parent households to one?
Every society has to set some sort of limits on itself, otherwise it's anarchy. Our society has been structured historically, religiously and economically with a certain marriage model in place. And all of the supporting institutions, churches, adoption agencies, government agencies, etc., have been structured under a certain paradigm of marriage.
If marriage were to be redefined, once that process begins, where does it end? What is the correct definition of "normal" vs. "alternative" or whatever terms apply. And if the "alternative" becomes "normal" then under what authority can we, as a society, keep the next "alternative" becoming "normal?" And, that's the slippery slope. Then everything becomes normal, all interpretations, and the institution, the sacrament of marriage, becomes inconsequential.
One of my best friends in the world is gay and he's been in a monogomous relationship for sixteen years, so I don't take this subject lightly.
And I don't think there's some secret club pushing this. But, as with anything political, as this and the players in it have become, I am highly suspicious.
It's not an easy subject for me, so in the end must rely on my faith to guide me.
Post a Comment