A New Religious Strategy Against Gay Marriage
October 30, 2008 by James Hipps
Last year, the Connecticut legislature debated whether to pass a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Unfortunately for opponents of the bill, the Connecticut Supreme Court made the decision first: same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
According to a NYT article, dissenters of the Court decision have conveyed their concern by invoking biology as the rationale behind the threat that same-sex marriage poses on society. Justice Peter T. Zarella explains in his dissenting opinion:
“The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. As many courts have recognized, the primary societal good advanced by this ancient institution is responsible procreation.”
Christians like Patricia and Wesley Galloway also hold this perspective. According to them, using religion to defend their view of marriage complicates matters. Instead, they invoke biology to advocate their views that “it takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.”
Read more at religionpoliticsandlaw.blogspot.com.
The only problem with that argument.. ok, the most obvious problem is that marriage as we know it is not ancient. You don’t even have to go back 100 years to find radically different rights for women. You certainly don’t have to go back far at all to find a time where women couldn’t own property, vote, or even be involved in the decision to marry.
While one can argue that heterosexual intercourse is an ancient activity, marriage between one man and one woman is an obvious fallacy. Even if you use the Christian’s Bible, marriage of one man to as many women as he could afford is the more common example. There are also cultures where couples weren’t considered “together” until children were produced - or Marriage in a legal sense was an option only for the upper class.