Re: Where's the Federal Marriage Amendment?
By Letters To The Editor Kevin Menken (11/29/05)
Nathan Tabor's short musing in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment is still another example of misguided policies of "conservatives" who believe that symbolic legislation is somehow a substitute for substantive tackling of the ills of a social institution. Since we all understand that gay Americans have nothing to do with the state of marriage in the United States, attempting to demonize their citizenship to score political points is about as sleazy as one can get - and risks alienating a portion of our population for decades.
It is rather ludicrous for heterosexuals to pretend that we have these "family values" debates about the "sanctity" of marriage in states around the country, when generally the people these amendments affect directly are often left out of the "discussion." Moreover, these debates never seem to be about the practical legal incidents that have no business being the exclusive domain of marriage, in particular those state laws governing personal health decisions, property disbursement and burial/funeral rights. And while these despicable amendments have been successful wedge issues for the Right, there has been little movement in examining state laws which deprive individuals from being able to adequately and simply take care of basic decisions in their lives. Instead, "conservatives" seem to believe that "family values" means imposing the rights of an estranged distant cousin over those of a longtime same-sex partner. . .and frankly, no one understands the morality behind that protection of family, especially since conservative "religious" groups continually attempt to define families as not including gay Americans. So I ask you. . .if your desire is to institutionalize ostracizing these people from their families, what is the moral foundation for then interjecting these same families into their most personal and basic decisions after encouraging these families to reject them?
Frankly, this family values argument is ridiculous. Protecting marriage would mean drastically limiting divorce or forcing penalties on people who abrogate their marriage vows. Protecting marriage would mean looking real hard at those state laws which allow first cousins to marry. Protecting marriage would be passing constitutional amendments "defining" marriage as being between a GROWN man and a woman; not the 13 and 14 year olds that can marry in Georgia without parental permission if the girl is pregnant.
Don't think gay Americans haven't noticed this inability to examine the marriage laws and account for the strange "sanctified" regulations that allow minors more access to legal protections and responsibilities than taxpaying same-sex couples. Don't think gay Americans haven't noticed that the same people who, for years, screamed that gays were just like pedophiles, willingly passed legislation allowing a 37 year old woman to marry a 15 year old boy because she became pregnant. Family values?
This country doesn't need a Federal Marriage Amendment. Not unless conservatives would like to include some responsibility language in that proposal....like "Marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman. . .for a lifetime." Then you might have something to debate. And I'm sure gay Americans have plenty to say about straight irresponsibilities from their very unique position as permanently shoved outside the privileged social class of the marry-for-a-green-card, marry-for-money, marry-for-sex, marry-cuz-I-had-a-drink breeder population.
Kevin Menken
(Printer friendly version) Email: Letters To The Editor
