Homosexual Marriage

Personally, I think the idea of a homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms. You can only define an institution like marriage in three ways: religiously, socio-historically, or by linguistic cop out (That is, there are no set definitions, a word only means what people agree it means). Obviously, homosexual marriage is rarely possible in a religious sense. In the socio-historical sense it is similarly difficult. The expectation of children was implicit in marriage, and the emphasis on love is only a recent development. Even if we accept love as the primary point of marriage, however, the socio-historical sense of marriage still would not allow homosexual marriage. Marriage is a union BEFORE A COMMUNITY. In the case of homosexual marriage, the community rejects the action as invalid. In this way an action meant to be a sign of respect and harmony with the community becomes a slap in the face of the community. And while some might claim that homosexual marriage does not weaken marriage, removing the communal aspect would certainly be detrimental (Now, this principle might seem to invalidate inter-racial marriages as well, which would put me in a rather undesirable position, but this is exactly why the religious nature of marriage is important. For while one might not be able to stand up before just any community in marriage, many church communities would accept the action as valid. Thus the communal aspect is preserved). In the linguistic sense that everyone agrees upon and thus defines the meaning of a term, homosexual marriage is also impossible. The fact that even California cannot produce a majority in against defining marriage in the traditional sense indicates that definition by consensus will not justify the existence of gay marriage. And while the first two senses of homosexual marriage are interesting, it is the linguistic sense that we must be concerned with. Religious definitions (I am told) must be kept out of the government, and the government landing on one side or the other in a religious debate is coercion. As for the socio-historical sense of marriage, it is irrelevant in policy debate. Our country prides itself on breaking traditions and this issue will be no different. The matter will not be resolved by an appeal to the past. It only makes sense for a democracy that legal definitions be decided democratically. But to be truly valid and representative, the definitions should not be based on a mere majority, but by an overwhelming consensus. Marriage is an institution with massive implications in society and religion and relatively minor legal implications. The government has no right to come down on one side or the other. Society ought to shape government, not government society. The only reasonable and fair thing to do is to follow the European example. The government should bow out. Government should refrain from defining marriage at all and allow whatever civil unions are reasonable. Any citizen ought to have the right to define his legal relations with others. And no government ought to be able to legislate societal structures. In the final analysis, the claim that there is one definition of marriage in this country is absurd. The debate itself disqualifies legal definition. That is all. Et memores, si metrum non habet, non est poema.