Why Marriage?
JACK
Hillary, you are about to get married, and I have wondered what there is about marriage, or any close relationship, that makes us want to get into a legal commitment? After being married for 54 years, and losing my wife, I had pretty much decided not to remarry. Then I met your Mother, and I did. I think what happened was that the decision not to remarry lasted until I met somebody with whom I wanted to share that special relationship. I wonder about it, because we lived happily together for two years, had a wonderful time, but one day I woke up at 3AM, looked across at her and she at me and I said "lets get married!" We had not discussed marriage and there never was any pressure. Certainly there was no thought of children. I did get married, next week will be our second anniversary, and I am happier now. What was there about being married that was so important?
HILLARY
I think you’re the only one that can answer that question. There are a lot people, if in that position, who would likely not have wanted to get married again. So, what compelled you to do it again?
JACK
I really am not sure. But let me answer the question with another question. I was 81 when I made that decision, you are now 31 and you are about to get married. So let me reverse it, and ask you why?
HILLARY
First, we love each other. And, it’s different than the other "love" relationships I’ve ever been in. There is something very reassuring about our love for each other, and our confidence in its ability to last. When you start to realize that this is person you’re going to share your life with, you want to do something that separates it from every other relationship you’ve had. Something inside of you wants to show everyone how you feel. As well, we do want to have a family, and I think that being married, and having one name, is the best possible scenario upon which to build a family. Not diminishing those families that don’t start out that way, as many are exceedingly successful, I just think it’s easier when you start a family with a marriage.
JACK
Your last reason is one of fitting into society, and it’s a potent reason, but as I listen to what you have to say, I realize that there is not such a wide gap between the ages. What you have just pointed out to me was that actually taking the marriage vows, and making a legal commitment tells everybody that this is not a temporary passion. It became a verification of what I was really feeling. Suddenly, I empathize with the gay community where two people want to make this kind of commitment, and the government says you cannot do that because you are of the same sex. Those with a seemingly liberal bent say, "we’ll give you some of the legal privileges, but we have decided that the marriage vow can only be made between a man and a woman." Isn’t it interesting that the right wing who spout the "less government" theme are the most vociferous in saying that the government must step in and prohibit same-sex marriage. Does that make sense to you?
HILLARY
Of course it doesn’t make sense. It is one of the most deeply hypocritical comments that a conservative can make. Less government, but no same-sex marriage. Less government, but no right to choose. Less government, but criminalize drug use, even for medical purposes. It’s an ideology wrought with contradictory messages that are only understood by the religiously orthodox.
JACK
Who does marriage really benefit? Here we are two card- carrying heterosexuals dismayed by the unfairness to citizens who happen to be gay. It’s interesting that in exploring our own feelings towards getting married we are brought to this jarring conclusion. Our drive for happiness and fulfillment is not restricted by sexual preference or age.
Communication is inspiration! Share your thoughts below.
13 Comments
Leave a reply
Respectfully, you have it precisely backwards. Conservatives, i.e., classical liberals, are against the government — in fact, not even the government, just a single elite in a black robe — forcing citizens to redefine marriage. It is hardly just conservatives. Whenever given the opportunity to vote, citizens are overwhelminly against the redefinition of marriage. It is hardly conservatives who oppose the “right to choose,” but radical leftists who want to force us to accept their beliefs.
The redefinition of marriage is not a liberal position, but a leftist one, and you must understand the distinction between left and liberal. No civilization has ever had “homosexual marriage,” because no such thing exists by definition, any more than I could redifine my aunt as a trolley car. Marriage is not an “invention” of government, but a natural (actually , supernatural) institution which creates the very possibility of human civilization. Government only protects this natural right, consistent with the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence — i.e., that we are endowed with certain rights by our Creator, not by some leftists judge’s idea of how things should be. Allowing leftist judges to tamper with the foundations of civlization is a good recipe for tyranny.
Curious George 08/14/07 @ 5:49 amGeorge,
I wonder…what troubles you about “homosexual marriage”? Leaving aside religious teachings, and perhaps even the language of our constitution (on which we could have a lengthy discussion,) do you see a political downside to allowing two people of the same sex to marry?
As well, does it concern you that the national coversation is often caught up in “moral” issues, on which our country is not likely to universally see eye to eye?
Communication is inspiration,
Hillary 08/14/07 @ 6:18 amHillary
“Leaving aside religious teachings, and perhaps even the language of our constitution”
Well, at least you acknowledge your wish to leave aside the language of the Constitution.
“do you see a political downside to allowing two people of the same sex to marry?”
No, I say let the people decide. As I said, if given the choice, the vast majority are against the idea of the state redefining marriage.
“As well, does it concern you that the national coversation is often caught up in “moral” issues, on which our country is not likely to universally see eye to eye?”
No, not at all. You believe it is moral to radically redefine marriage, while most people don’t see it that way. You are free to make that moral argument, but realize that your morality is not shared by most people. You will have to pursuade people, not just demonize those with whom you disagree.
Curious George 08/14/07 @ 8:29 am“Well, at least you acknowledge your wish to leave aside the language of the Constitution.”
Yes, because the Constitution is a piece of paper, albeit a brilliant piece of paper. It is imperfect, admittedly so, with clauses to make changes when times call for them. Therefore, I am trying to look past the Constitution, past convention, in order to find your meaning.
“No, I say let the people decide. As I said, if given the choice, the vast majority is against the idea of the state redefining marriage.”
I agree, let the people decide. And I agree that the vast majority (of our deity-driven societies) will be against the idea of the state redefining marriage. My question is why. What is the downside of letting two people of the same sex marry?
“No, not at all. You believe it is moral to radically redefine marriage, while most people don’t see it that way. You are free to make that moral argument, but realize that your morality is not shared by most people. You will have to pursuade people, not just demonize those with whom you disagree. ”
I don’t feel satisfied by this response. The root of this conflict is a difference in morality. A foundation where large segments of the country are unlikely to agree. Why does the national conversation revolve around these divisive issues, when we could all be talking about the state of schools, roads and fundamental infrastructure? I wondered if the amount of attention placed, on an issue that is quite unlikely to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, is a good use of our collective time. Why can’t we table these “moral” issues until we have our country’s facilities sound?
Communication is inspiration,
Hillary
Hillary 08/14/07 @ 9:11 am“with clauses to make changes when times call for them. Therefore, I am trying to look past the Constitution, past convention, in order to find your meaning”
That is a non-sequitur. If the Constitution has clauses to change it, why ignore them?
>>What is the downside of letting two people of the same sex marry?
That would require a book-length response, as the reasons are many. Of course there are spiritual reasons, but also psychological and anthropological ones. In any event, you are the one calling for radical change, so it is incumbent upon you to make your case, not the other way around.
“Why does the national conversation revolve around these divisive issues, ”
You brought it up. I would be happy to drop the issue of redifining marriage, and leave marriage as it is and has always been.
“when we could all be talking about the state of schools, roads and fundamental infrastructure?”
We can talk about both. But again, if you feel there are more important issues, you should drop your focus on moral issues.
“I wondered if the amount of attention placed, on an issue that is quite unlikely to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, is a good use of our collective time.”
Again, you brought it up.
“Why can’t we table these “moral” issues until we have our country’s facilities sound?”
First of all, there is nothing more important than morality. It is the basis of the very possibility of civilization.
Secondly, infrastructure is ignored by politicians because they prefer to waste the government’s money elsewhere. It is well understood that the money appropriated for maintaining and repairing infrastructure is diverted into pet projects of politicians with more of a political pay-off. It’s just the way it is. There’s plenty of money. The government wastes it, because that’s what government is good at.
Curious George 08/14/07 @ 10:21 amWhat Jack and I brought up was a sense of sadness for those who feel what we do, a longing for the status that marriage offers, who are unable to have it. Our feelings come from a position of compassion, and our lack of understanding of those who are critical of a homosexual lifestyle.
Jack and I were talking about our personal lives, as I am getting married soon, which made the subject natural to discuss. The “national conversation” question is my (somewhat off topic) attempt to understand the perspective of people who may put this type of discussion ahead of others in the public debate.
The idea here is for people share differing ideas, with a goal of consideration, not conversion or condemnation.
Communication is inspiration,
Hillary
Hillary 08/14/07 @ 11:11 amCompassion is fine, but feelings should not determine public policy. That is a recipe for disaster.
In any event, opposition to the redefinition of marriage has nothing to do with being critical of the “homosexual lifestyle,” any more than your opposition to traditional marriage presumably has to do with being critical of the “heterosexual lifestyle.” Marriage is a natural right that is to be protected by government, not something invented or to be redefined by big government and forced upon an unwilling population. There are plenty of homosexuals who are against the redefinition of marriage. It has nothing to do with animus toward homosexuals, but what is best for society.
Curious George 08/14/07 @ 12:23 pmThank you, George. I truly appreciate that you shared your perspective on this subject, though we may not see eye to eye on it.
I wonder, if you would - What issues trouble you the most (locally, nationally, and/or internationally)? And what strides in civilization do you see that could use more attention?
Communication is inspiration,
Hillary 08/14/07 @ 12:37 pmHillary
What issues trouble me the most (locally, nationally, and/or internationally)?
For starters,
1. Defeating the global jihad.
Curious George 08/14/07 @ 5:11 pm2. Breaking the ruinous stranglehold leftists have had on the educational establishment for the past 50 years, and introducing choice into the system.
3. Reducing the size of government and keeping taxes low, which historically helps “the little guy” much more than any government handout.
4. Leaving the U.N. — which is a gang of thugs, tyrants and vicious anti-Semites — and begin a new United Democracies.
5. Confirming judges who will interpret the Constitution rather than making up laws.
6. Tort reform: loser pays.
7. Social security reform, which must begin with choice, i.e., privatization.
Oh yes — and secure the borders. It’s the only way to stop the tide of illegals, which will in turn force our corrupt neighboring governments to reform.
Curious George 08/14/07 @ 5:15 pmI’d like to add a couple of thoughts to this discussion. First, to circle back to the conversation Jack and Hillary began — namely, why do/should people marry? I agree wholeheartedly with the view that when you find the person you wish to spend the rest of your life with, you want to establish it as unique, and you want to let everyone know that THIS PERSON IS THE ONE. When I get married in November, it will be the very best day of my life.
Beyond that, the marriage will be the foundation of our family. For us, that family will (hopefully) include children. By taking the step to marry, we will be showing our children that we are committed to being together, and raising a family.
To that end, why shouldn’t two people of the same sex make this commitment, and raise a family together? In my view, the more people there are to provide love to children, to be strong role models for them, etc., the better off the children will be. So, if two people of the same sex are able to provide a good, strong, loving home, who are any of us to stand in their way?
The Constitution stated very clearly that African-Americans should be counted as 3/5 of a person. Is there anyone who would favor this viewpoint today??? Clearly, the Constitution, and it’s meaning, evolves over time. Hopefully, our society will evolve in a similar fashion.
Scott Weintraub 08/15/07 @ 12:11 pm“Why shouldn’t two people of the same sex make this commitment, and raise a family together? In my view, the more people there are to provide love to children, to be strong role models for them, etc., the better off the children will be. So, if two people of the same sex are able to provide a good, strong, loving home, who are any of us to stand in their way?”
Indeed, why not three people, or ten people, or a person and his dog? Would you have any objection to that? If not, why not? What is the basis for your belief that only two people should be married? Are you Mormophobic?
And don’t throw out the 3/5 canard. As you know, that was only to prevent the South from having more power, based upon counting blacks in their census. It was inserted by anti-slavery, not pro-slavery forces. In any event, no one is suggesting that homosexuals are 3/5 of a person.
The constitution does not “evolve,” since it is not a biological organism. However, it can be amended. But even then, there is no basis for redefining a word, marriage, which refers to the unique spritual union of male and female. That’s what it means. Why not invent a new word for homosexual unions, rather than confusing the issue?
Curious George 08/15/07 @ 2:56 pmI have a few things to add to the discussion from the other side of the Atlantic.
I am also getting married and have waited a very long time to do that because i did not find the right man in my life. I knew right from the beginning that we could make something good together and that he is was willing, we would go further, so yes Hillary, we did not start the “proper way” we did have a babay first and then got married but the best part is to have found someone to love and to be loved back!
We just learned that my dear cousin is lesbian and has a wonderful partner. In France it is unlegal for them to get married but there is a substitute the PACS. So they did something like that but still I feel it is not right to them. They should be allowed to adopt kids who suffers and are waiting for love. My cousin is a great woman with kids and I feel it is too bad that the state organizes their life and the way they liveit. What do YOU personally care curious George that my cousin and her partner are getting married and are adopting kids?
It would not change my personal life in any way, it would give a chance to thousands of kids to be loved the way they never have had a chance to, and it won’t change the fact that when i see my cousin kiss her girlfriend, i feel weird about it, but I am SOOOOOOOOOOOO happy that finally she found love in her life that it does not matter.
Let me ask you something curious george, are you in love and are you loved?
sophie Morel 08/29/07 @ 2:25 amBecause once you are able to love someone, then it is a beautiful story that starts, like another life!!!!!
sophie and special kiss to my Hillary and Jack (see you at My wedding!)