Monday, July 26, 2004
An Amended Amendment
Ohio is considering a new Marriage amendment. It comes a close second in the contest for the title of "Draconian" to the one approved in Virginia.
After listening to the the hyperbole of the supporters of the new amendment on NPR, I was, to say the least befuddled, and amused. One of the women who called had this test for testing the morality of a particular concept (in this case, she was trying to decide if same-sex marriage is moral):
If the new concept is accepted universally, i.e., in this case, every citizen decides to marry somebody of the same sex, will it be harmful for the society?
If this were, God forbid, accepted as the scale for testing laws, we would have to bring back prohibition (who thinks a country of drunkards is good?). But that aside, I was thinking hard about what exactly was disturbing me the most about the rhetoric of these folks. And I found it.
If procreation is the core idea of marriage, should their amendment not read:
Marriage in fill in your state here shall be defined as a union of one man, one woman, and at least one child born to that man and woman.
Now, there is an amendment that would make it clear ("crystal", as Lt. Daniel Kaffee would say in A Few Good Men) that the child, not the parents, are the core to the marriage.
Of course, there are a couple of problems with it. For one, Pat Buchanan would have his marriage invalidated. But then, he has only been fornicating with his wife ever since they learned they are clinically sterile.
Comments: Post a Comment