{ title: 'The Prospector (Helena, Mont.) 1916-2015, April 07, 2004, Page 11, Image 11', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about Chronicling America - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-04-07/ed-1/seq-11.png', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-04-07/ed-1/seq-11.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-04-07/ed-1/seq-11/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/TheProspector/2004-04-07/ed-1/seq-11/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
About The Prospector (Helena, Mont.) 1916-2015 | View This Issue
The Prospector (Helena, Mont.), 07 April 2004, located at <http://montananewspapers.org/lccn/TheProspector/2004-04-07/ed-1/seq-11/>, image provided by MONTANA NEWSPAPERS, Montana Historical Society, Helena, Montana.
ETHICS ON THE HILL 11 GAY MARRIAGE The issue of gay marriage has intensified in the last few months in our country as several cities have begun issuing marriage licenses. Marriage is a valuable thing in our society, and many gay men and lesbians want to be married. However, many ethical questions come easily to mind: Is it discrimination to refuse marriage to homosexual couples? Is it imposing religious values on others? Are there any social harms to allowing gay marriage? Are they any social benefits to maintaining the status quo? This issue we investigate these questions. A realistic view of marriage Equal rights under law By Murry Warhank Senior, Political Science Major When dealing with an issue as contentious and emotionally charged as this issue, it is all too easy to over complicate the essence of the debate. This is the case with the premier contempo rary struggle in American politics: same-sex marriage. First, it is necessary to point out that proponents of homosexu al marriage are not seeking reli gious vindication for their sexuali ty, nor are they trying to force their beliefs on anyone. What they are trying to do is get mar ried so they can enjoy the same legal rights as millions of other couples. Currently, marriage is the only way to accomplish this. Unfortunately, most in this culture seem to have a misconception about what marriage is and what it is not. State recognized mar riage is not a sacred vow before God; it is a property contract, entered into by both parties and sanctioned by the state to ensure that assets are properly distributed upon death of one of the partners or the dissolution of the contract itself. However, there are over one thousand other rights that accompany this contract. For example, hospital visitation, access to life insurance, and even the right to child support all accompany a marriage contract. So explain to me why the gov ernment has an interest in stop ping two consenting adults from entering into a contract that will ensure that if the “partnership” is ever broken that assets are distrib uted in an equitable manner? Clearly, polygamy and incest have proven to be harmful to those who are involved, but homosexuality has not. Same-sex couples involved in long-term, monogamous relationships have significantly lower rates of dis ease and are much healthier than those who are not. Additionally, the state would save a tremendous amount of money by allowing contracts to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation that often results from “divorced” same-sex couples. The bottom line: don’t make marriage into something that it is not. Marriage is rarely the God- sanctioned reproductive collabo rative that most claim it to be (see Britney Spears and Jason “Don’t Call Me Costanza” Alexander’s ill-fated Las Vegas tryst). However, I guess I am guilty of this, too. Here I have been talk ing about contracts when the hap piness of 40 million homosexuals is on the line! By Debra Bemardi Associate Professor, Department of Languages and Literature I do not feel comfortable dis cussing the religious or spiritual dimensions of marriage, so my musings here only reflect on the legal implications of this institu tion, so central to our cultural ideals. One thing we know: whether a particular marriage is good or bad, simply being mar ried in the United States carries with it over 600 economic and legal benefits. Not to mention the indefinable status it brings to a couple’s relationship. Another thing we know: the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees every per son equal protection under the law. Every person. No matter the gender. If we all are equal under the law, should anyone’s gender matter if s/he wants to gain the protection of marriage laws? Should it matter if an individual’s gender is the same as his/her part ner? Any more than race or reli gion matter? Despite the supposed sacred ness of marriage, it seems our cul ture doesn’t really care whom you marry as long as the person is of the opposite sex. That is, it’s legal to marry for one night (think Britney Spears); legal to marry a person you meet for a few weeks on “reality” TV; legal to marry for money; legal to marry over and over again. So let’s face it, these debates about same-sex marriage are not about the sacredness of the institution, but about a determina tion to keep it heterosexual. Why is that so crucial? The writer Adrienne Rich argues that our culture promotes hetero sexuality for political reasons— specifically in order to support capitalism. That is, men can go to work and make money and build the economy because people of a lower status (read: women) take care of home life. But obviously gender roles are changing. Perhaps once we fully decide that marriage roles need not be based on gender, our culture’s dogged determination that marriage be only heterosexual will loosen. In end I fully believe that .same- sex marriage—at least in terms of the state—is an idea whose time is coming. People may try to take away individual freedoms through laws or even a constitutional amendment. But there will finally be no stopping this: witness what has been going on in San Francisco and elsewhere. Governments and other institutions can only undermine the rights of individuals if the individuals go along with it. It doesn’t seem to me that gay couples are going along with these rules any more. COLUMN Marriage is for procreation and the stability of society By Arlette Randash Pro-Family Advocate, Helena, MT Since the dawn of recorded history, marriage has been defined as a union between a woman and man, and for good reason. The main reasons for marriage are procreation and the stability of society. Only in the last fifty years has there been an attempt to redefine marriage as a self-actualization project with the primary goal of personal satisfaction. That goal has wreaked havoc on het erosexual marriages and has opened the way for “gay mar riage”, where its harm would spread and intensify. The first harm done in “gay marriages” is to the individuals in the union. When the primary goal becomes individual satis faction, personal desires prevail over the needs of the other “spouse”, children and society’s common good. When that per sonal satisfaction fades, there exists no incentive to work out the marriage’s problems because the other “spouse”, children and the community’s common good were never the primary consider ation. The second harm done is to children. Longitudinal studies regarding children of divorces have clearly indicated that they experience significantly higher problems than those of non- divorced couples. The third harm done is to society. The nuclear family (husband, wife, children) is the basic building block of a socie ty, and when we dismantle the building block we are under mining the common good of society. There is no argument that the American society has been weakened by the deteriora tion of the family (divorce rate of first marriages is 50 percent, rate for second marriages is 60- 70 percent, and for couples who cohabitate the rate of divorce is 75 percent). To build unions between persons for the sole sake of their personal satisfac tion and call them marriages makes a mockery of families struggling against the tide and contributes further to undermin ing the basic building block of community. We should put the good of the community above our own per sonal desires, especially having not seen the long term effects of homosexual unions and children raised in the unions. These stud ies have yet to be conducted. All persons regardless of their sexual or religious orientation are to be respected. However, being respected does not mean that marriage is for any and everyone. Finally, if I were to argue for homosexual “marriages” (with marriage as an entitlement of anyone desiring it for their per sonal satisfaction and recogni tion) I would also have to argue for marriages for polygamists and other assorted unions to become the norm for society, and that I can’t do. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2004 VOLUME 87, NO. 6
