creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
William Murchison
William Murchison
14 Feb 2012
Power Vs. Liberty

"Compromise," in President Obama's lexicon, has a funny meaning. It means — with respect to … Read More.

7 Feb 2012
Planned Parenthood's Grand Delusion

Go the website PlannedParenthood.org. You know, Planned Parenthood, around whose rippling banner enlightened … Read More.

31 Jan 2012
How to Split and Spoil a Party

What's all this "Republican establishment" vs. "grassroots populist" business; would … Read More.

Calling Things By Their Right Names

Share Comment

The placard in the photo of a recent rally favoring gay marriage asks, bluntly, "Family. Isn't It About Love?"

Well, hmm. You might indeed incline to such a view. Then, again, you might wish to broaden the perspective, in keeping with normative modes for understanding the foundational human structure we call family.

You'd want to begin with the acknowledgement that where norms exist, there's generally a reason for them: the sounder the reason, the more tenacious and enduring the norm, the more deeply lodged in heart and soul and mind. You need more than a placard to uproot such norms. You need compelling reasons.

The voters of California, Florida and Arizona on Nov. 4 saw no such reasons. They enacted formal bans on so-called gay marriage. Thus, the scattered if occasionally sizable protests of a few days ago. The protesters don't like the old marriage norms — one man, one woman. They want new norms, insisting on love as the only thing that matters.

End of debate. We want — so give it to us. Now. Very post-1950s American, don't you agree?

The protesters use the language of civil rights. To quote the chant at a rally last weekend in Washington, D.C.: "Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right."

No, it's not — not in the sense that desire equals lawful claim, binding on the whole community. To make such a claim is to argue for the dissolving of whatever underlies our life together, and for its replacement with any flickering want or wish.

One reason society guards traditional marriage with a certain jealous care is that marriage orders and regularizes the basic condition of life, namely, the male-female relationship. Society sets boundaries around marriage, establishes rules and rights, lets the parties know what they may expect, and what is expected of them in turn.

A second reason: Family is future. A mother, meaning a woman, and a father, meaning a man, bring life into the world.

There's no other way to do it. Even in Dr. Frankenstein's experiments, a human body was the starting point.

The language of the gay marriage protesters is deliberately subversive. All they want, supposedly, is a crack in the legal door wide enough to admit partners of the same sex. That would be "marriage"? Not at all. It would be something wholly new in human experience, with consequences beyond imagining. You might as well call a lamppost a bottle of chardonnay as call the union of two gay people a marriage, howsoever kindly the two parties involved, howsoever generous and public-spirited. It's not about them; it's about us all.

Words like "honor" and "truth" — yes, and "marriage" — aren't just combinations of vowels and consonants. They have lives of their own. They point to how a thing (BEGIN ITALS) is (END ITALS), not in opinion merely, but in reality. The joy of renaming a thing, of course, is that of reinventing it, substituting a wholly new "reality."

A non-normative marriage, once allowed, undermines the normative kind just by inference. If the norm no longer is the lifelong union of a man and a woman, we may count on the imaginative faculties of those most concerned to come up with new understandings. I don't think the proponents of gay marriage have in mind the extension of the matter to polygamy, but when you think it over, why not? It's what some people want. Shouldn't they have what they want? To deny a 21st century American his wishes (unless he's some Christian rightist or other) would be cruel and hateful.

It's some century all right: great in various particulars, awful in others, such as those touching on the care and conservation of the great truths that once joined all men and women, mind linking with mind, generation with generation. The other side of it is, Californians, when challenged on the point, knew what to do, and so did Floridians and Arizonans. As the Unsinkable Molly Brown would have it, we ain't down yet.

William Murchison is a senior fellow of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. To find out more about William Murchison and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... The demand is for equality and justice; and you may have pledged yourself to the republic, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all... If there is a conflict here, between under God, and liberty and justice for all, as in equal, -then God certainly has the power to rectify that situation... For our part, we can only include, because the larger nation, represented by the government must include all excluded by all small groups, every church, club, union, and community, and resolve those differences justly, or there is no reason why any small group should support and defend the larger society... Much as the churches wish to dominate, and to deny rights left and right; they are doing a damage to all the society if they can exclude people from the protection of equality on the basis of a majority vote... To deny rights one must have absolute proof of an injury to society, as when one murders, and so is denied the right to life or liberty... If people are excluded from rights on the basis of ideological preference there is no end to it until the society ends in self destruction...The religious right need a lesson in the proper role and function of government, because as it stands, the government is not meeting the goals it has set for itself in the preamble of the contitution and is not protecting the rights guaranteed by the bill of rights unless one is a community such as the church community, or the propertied class.... Until the government can handle the basics of government, it should not deny rights, and so makes enemies of the very people it needs as friends, the citizens...
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Nov 18, 2008 7:13 AM
Sir;... I would like to make a correction for you... What we think of as traditional marriage is in no sense, traditional.. Monagamy is not traditional, and marrriage as a sacrament is not traditional... When men figured out that they played a part in reproduction, those with money wanted to use marriage as a defense of wealth into perpetuity..In England, curiously, the quick route to freedom, the greatest wealth, for a villein, - came from being born illegitimate... Why being free born should depend upon being a bastard can only be surmised, but it is no less true....Marriage in our later day gave control.. It was never just an exchange of sex, but of values, and for many, a treaty of peace...Now; The control men got over the rights of women did nothing to help women, or people generally, but it did serve their purposes... If you think religion will teach you anything about marriage, read your Bible, and if you are still in the mood, read Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, by W. R. Smith; and this will give you some insight into the Bible, and Consider Morgan's Ancient Society, which is old, and dated, but it goes into some length about different forms of marriage common in primitive societies... Something else.. The reason societies, people really, hang onto old forms, is that so long as they serve the purpose of society there is no reason to change them...Forms represent stability in a changing world, no matter what the form... Clearly, homosexuals have the same needs as other people for a form of marriage, and they are also seeking general equality... Whether I think they need it is irrelevant, since they think they do... And they actually support the form, the traditional form, while I think, that having an informal relationship is superior in every sense... But judge not, lest ye be judged... They pay their taxes, and deserve equality.... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #2
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Tue Nov 18, 2008 5:33 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
William Murchison
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Joe Conason
Joe ConasonUpdated 16 Feb 2012

29 Jan 2008 Could the Republicans Win This One?

12 Oct 2010 Let No Crisis Go To Waste

20 Oct 2009 Obama and his 'Enemy' Fetish