Technorati Tags: Analysis: How , California , Court , Undermined , Marriage
TAKE ACTION
Sign petition - protect
marriage today!
Stand with Children, Project of Cathoics for the Common Good Intitute
by J. Boom
When the vote of one justice on the California Supreme Court provided a majority that changed the legal meaning of marriage, the ruling immediately sparked a political controversy. However, this judicial decree goes far beyond politics. It strikes at the very heart of society. The basic building block of social life is the family.
Human beings are not manufactured on factory assembly lines. We come into existence through the physical union of a man and a woman. This union cannot stop at the physical level. When a man and a woman are united at all levels—socially, emotionally, economically, legally—then they are able to provide a child everything he or she needs for health and growth.
Only the combination of a mother and a father can provide a child with the full spectrum of emotional, moral, social and economic support. Because this union is so necessary for a child’s well being, it is a matter of social justice for a child to have a father and a mother. Every baby, every little boy and girl, and every adolescent needs parental care. To protect the rights and interests of the child, societies and religions have instituted marriage, which is the complete union of a man and a woman.
Only the combination of a mother and a father can provide a child with the full spectrum of emotional, moral, social and economic support. Because this union is so necessary for a child’s well being, it is a matter of social justice for a child to have a father and a mother.
The Court’s decision, however, turns marriage inside-out. Instead of being an institution designed with children’s rights in minds, it is now an arrangement for the convenience of adults. An adult supposedly has a “right” to marry any other adult, regardless of how their arrangement will affect children. A man-man or woman-woman pairing are now the legal equivalents of the pairing of a man and a woman. This means that society no longer has an institution that specifically encourages men and women to commit to each other in solid unions—even though such unions are the only way to provide children with both mothers and fathers.
The Court goes even further in preventing society from holding up unions of men and women as a norm. The four justices ruled that homosexuals constitute a “suspect class.” This means that sexual orientation has the same legal status as race or religion. Just as the government cannot favor one race or religion over another, so also it cannot favor one sexual orientation over another.
The law serves as a moral compass for cultural values. If showing preference for unions of men and women is bigotry in the eyes of the law, it will also become bigotry in the eyes of society.
In other words, the State of California cannot do anything to promote the special value of men and women committing to each other, because that would be discrimination against homosexuals. In the Court’s view, anyone who holds that there are unique reasons for unions of men and women is a bigot. This implicitly places churches and synagogues on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists.
This will have a huge impact on education. Suppose an elementary school teacher has students read stories about princes and princesses and knights and maidens. This can be considered discriminatory, because it promotes opposite-sex unions without supporting same-sex ones. Textbooks and other materials in classrooms will have to be changed to give equal support to same-sex and traditional unions. Biology, social science and English lesson plans must all teach that all sexual preferences are equal.
Outside of the classroom, the messages and values of society will also change. The law serves as a moral compass for cultural values. If showing preference for unions of men and women is bigotry in the eyes of the law, it will also become bigotry in the eyes of society. Showing male and female newlyweds strolling hand in hand along the shore of a beach in a TV or print ad is discriminatory, if we do not have similar images of “groom and groom” or “bride and bride.” Society will no longer have a clear image of man and woman united together as a model.
The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not just about a name or a label. We have something substantial at stake—the meaning of marriage and family, and our identities as men and women.
This will have a grave effect on people’s sense of identity and purpose. Our sense of the value of being male or female is intimately tied to the recognition that men and women contribute unique gifts to the formation of a family. But what happens when society teaches that two men are sufficient for raising a child? Then the message is that mothers are not necessary. Likewise, a woman-woman “marriage” implies that fathers are not necessary. Fatherhood and motherhood become accidental, because gender is not a relevant factor. But if there is nothing special about being a mother or a father, then what is special about being a woman or a man?
The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not just about a name or a label. We have something substantial at stake—the meaning of marriage and family, and our identities as men and women. If the California Supreme Court’s decision stands, then both California and the nation as a whole will face consequences we can only begin to imagine.
On the other hand, the ProtectMarriage.com initiative will be on the November 2008 ballot and will offer voters an opportunity to overrule California Supreme Court. It would amend the state constitution, and restore common sense and the will of the people expressed in 2000 with the passage of Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22), which then defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The stakes in the November election are monumental and the results will have consequences for every family in California and across the nation. The true meaning of marriage must be restored.
J. Boom is a postgraduate student in history in Berkeley, CA.
TAKE ACTION
Sign petition - protect
marriage today!
Stand with Children, Project of Cathoics for the Common Good Intitute
by J. Boom
When the vote of one justice on the California Supreme Court provided a majority that changed the legal meaning of marriage, the ruling immediately sparked a political controversy. However, this judicial decree goes far beyond politics. It strikes at the very heart of society. The basic building block of social life is the family.
Human beings are not manufactured on factory assembly lines. We come into existence through the physical union of a man and a woman. This union cannot stop at the physical level. When a man and a woman are united at all levels—socially, emotionally, economically, legally—then they are able to provide a child everything he or she needs for health and growth.
Only the combination of a mother and a father can provide a child with the full spectrum of emotional, moral, social and economic support. Because this union is so necessary for a child’s well being, it is a matter of social justice for a child to have a father and a mother. Every baby, every little boy and girl, and every adolescent needs parental care. To protect the rights and interests of the child, societies and religions have instituted marriage, which is the complete union of a man and a woman.
Only the combination of a mother and a father can provide a child with the full spectrum of emotional, moral, social and economic support. Because this union is so necessary for a child’s well being, it is a matter of social justice for a child to have a father and a mother.
The Court’s decision, however, turns marriage inside-out. Instead of being an institution designed with children’s rights in minds, it is now an arrangement for the convenience of adults. An adult supposedly has a “right” to marry any other adult, regardless of how their arrangement will affect children. A man-man or woman-woman pairing are now the legal equivalents of the pairing of a man and a woman. This means that society no longer has an institution that specifically encourages men and women to commit to each other in solid unions—even though such unions are the only way to provide children with both mothers and fathers.
The Court goes even further in preventing society from holding up unions of men and women as a norm. The four justices ruled that homosexuals constitute a “suspect class.” This means that sexual orientation has the same legal status as race or religion. Just as the government cannot favor one race or religion over another, so also it cannot favor one sexual orientation over another.
The law serves as a moral compass for cultural values. If showing preference for unions of men and women is bigotry in the eyes of the law, it will also become bigotry in the eyes of society.
In other words, the State of California cannot do anything to promote the special value of men and women committing to each other, because that would be discrimination against homosexuals. In the Court’s view, anyone who holds that there are unique reasons for unions of men and women is a bigot. This implicitly places churches and synagogues on the same level as the Ku Klux Klan or white supremacists.
This will have a huge impact on education. Suppose an elementary school teacher has students read stories about princes and princesses and knights and maidens. This can be considered discriminatory, because it promotes opposite-sex unions without supporting same-sex ones. Textbooks and other materials in classrooms will have to be changed to give equal support to same-sex and traditional unions. Biology, social science and English lesson plans must all teach that all sexual preferences are equal.
Outside of the classroom, the messages and values of society will also change. The law serves as a moral compass for cultural values. If showing preference for unions of men and women is bigotry in the eyes of the law, it will also become bigotry in the eyes of society. Showing male and female newlyweds strolling hand in hand along the shore of a beach in a TV or print ad is discriminatory, if we do not have similar images of “groom and groom” or “bride and bride.” Society will no longer have a clear image of man and woman united together as a model.
The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not just about a name or a label. We have something substantial at stake—the meaning of marriage and family, and our identities as men and women.
This will have a grave effect on people’s sense of identity and purpose. Our sense of the value of being male or female is intimately tied to the recognition that men and women contribute unique gifts to the formation of a family. But what happens when society teaches that two men are sufficient for raising a child? Then the message is that mothers are not necessary. Likewise, a woman-woman “marriage” implies that fathers are not necessary. Fatherhood and motherhood become accidental, because gender is not a relevant factor. But if there is nothing special about being a mother or a father, then what is special about being a woman or a man?
The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not just about a name or a label. We have something substantial at stake—the meaning of marriage and family, and our identities as men and women. If the California Supreme Court’s decision stands, then both California and the nation as a whole will face consequences we can only begin to imagine.
On the other hand, the ProtectMarriage.com initiative will be on the November 2008 ballot and will offer voters an opportunity to overrule California Supreme Court. It would amend the state constitution, and restore common sense and the will of the people expressed in 2000 with the passage of Defense of Marriage Act (Prop 22), which then defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The stakes in the November election are monumental and the results will have consequences for every family in California and across the nation. The true meaning of marriage must be restored.
J. Boom is a postgraduate student in history in Berkeley, CA.
No comments:
Post a Comment