June 29, 2009

• GAY MARRIAGE

  

  Life is all about “ass”.

  You’re either covering it,

  Laughing it off,

  Kicking it,

  Kissing it,

  Busting it,

  Trying to get a piece of it,

  Behaving like one,

  Or you live with one.

  Date:  2/18/2004

   

  To:  Letter to the Editors (Boston Globe)

   

  Re:  Gay Marriage

   

  A critical analysis of the gay marriage issues shows that many people are missing the boat.  To look at an issue using critical analysis means that you ask the right questions, you come to grips with the right definitions, you identify the assumptions and see that the logic is correct and is not flawed so that other people can and will accept it.

   

  The main issue of gay marriage is one of spousal rights.  It is not an issue of children, it is not an issue of historic or cultural custom, and it is not an issue of being a threat to family or church.  We need to examine what is the definition of a spouse? And what rights does society currently grant a spouse? 

   

  Currently we grant spouses special rights such as inheritance, hospital visitation, tax breaks, social security benefits, joint property ownership, etc.  The gay community is calling for equal rights for their spouses.  Instead of comparing this to the black civil rights movement, it is more accurate to compare it to times when there were fights for spouses to own property and to inherit property.  These rights not only provided them individual rights but also special rights because of the responsibilities they incurred by becoming married and also because of the obligations that society imposes on a spouse. 

   

  I have heard no one against gay marriages say that a gay person should not be given special rights like hospital visitation.  So the issue comes down not to the granting of rights as much as a definition of a spouse.  What defines a spouse?  Since the rights which are granted a spouse are granted by the government (society), other institutions’ definitions should not be an issue.  The Catholic Church currently does not recognize a divorce which is sanctioned by society, so it does not have to recognize a marriage which is sanctioned by society.  It can continue to define holy marriage with its own definition as it does now.  The rights enumerated above are not predicated on the presence of children, so that should not be the issue. 

   

  We should ask ourselves questions such as why society grants rights to spouses first, and then see if those reasons apply to marriages of same sex people in the same way or differently than heterosexual marriages.  Then maybe we can have some constructive discussions and dialogs that are rational rather than based on emotions.  Then maybe we can see this process of dealing with a complex issue as a community building experience rather than a divisive issue.

   

  • 11:33 pm
  • 2 Comments