Feb. 22, 2004

Same-Sex Marriage Controversy a No-Brainer

An epigram by the late humorist Will Rogers best explains the controversy about homosexual marriages – "It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so."

What we mostly don’t know about same-sex marriages are the meanings of "morality" and "mores."

 Definitions are hard to find in the Massachusetts and California homosexual marriage controversies.

 The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled recently that the "union" of two men or two women by any declaration to the state is "marriage."

 The court based its decision on the lack of clear definition of marriage in the state constitution.

Judges gave the state six months to define marriage before pending cases on the issue are adjudicated. Frantic legislators are debating a statute to define marriage but are deadlocked.

The new Democratic mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, was emboldened by the Massachusetts action. He started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

More than 3,000 licenses have been issued in violation of California law adopted by public referendum three years ago. It stipulates that only "marriages between a man and a woman" are valid.

The State Human Services Department has refused to record same-sex licenses because of "alterations" on application forms.

City clerks crossed out printed words "Groom" and "Bride" identification blanks. Instead, the words "Applicant l" and "Applicant 2" were inked in.

Now Mayor Newsom is suing the state to make it accept altered licenses. Advocates for each side flooded the courts with pleas to validate the certificates or to declare them null and void.

Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger says, "I support all of California’s existing laws that provide domestic-partnership benefits and protections.

"However, Californians spoke overwhelmingly on the law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I support that law and encourage San Francisco officials to obey it."  

President Bush has taken a stance similar to that of California, Texas and 38 other states – domestic union and civil protection but not "marriage."

Thus we come to meanings.

Morality vacillates easily between "good" and "bad."  Puritans vs. MTV.

Mores evolve slowly over what is "acceptable" and "unacceptable." Custom norm vs. social anarchy

Webster defines "marriage" as (1) relation between husband and wife; (2) rite or form used in marrying; (3) any close or intimate union.

Mores is defined as: "Conventions that embody fundamental values of a group."

That is, rules of behavior generally accepted without codification. These are the most powerful parameters for human behavior.

We can’t escape the first rule of nature –Anthropology 101: Preservation of Species. All living things put continuation of their kind above every thing else.  

Homosexual unions – by definition -- cannot  produce babies. Nonetheless, they can contribute meaningfully to the well being of the human race.

Most folks are not interested in what others do behind closed doors. It matters only what others do to help the human group continue.

All couples living together in love (not just sex) for mutual support are due the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.

Not all couples bear children, but vicissitudes of life result in orphans and abandoned babies that call for devoted couples to take over as parents, or to support them through group services.

We survive as a group, it takes a group to pass along accumulated wisdom to a better generation – as nature intends.

Labels for loving, dedicated couples are immaterial. The only requirement is public recognition of their role by government.

Thousands of heterosexual couples are "married" every day by notarized county clerks. Such unions are just as bound by law and custom as if blessed by a minister, priest or rabbi.

It is appropriate for devout same-sex couples to solemnize their union with religious ritual -- if so inclined.

Also, it is appropriate for society to favor a man-woman marriage from which new life must come and/or be nourished.

Now we are down to semantics.

Homosexuals want approval of their life style that is contrary to custom. This cannot be. Personal respect -- based on group contribution --is all that anyone gets.

Church affiliates generally relate sex with sin. These are two different things. The first two Commandments are the proper precepts.

Marriages are marriages. No one knows the differences except those united. No amount of argument will change that.

Let’s all take a deep breath, and start over.

Lindsey Williams is a Sun columnist. He can be emailed linwms@lindseywilliams.org