While I can appreciate her personal disapproval of same-sex marriages, I do not believe that legislation should be based on religious teachings. As I wrote in a previous entry, religious legislation places limitations on the rights of society as a whole. I would expect such biased legislation from a theocratic nation, not a democratic republic like the United States.
Marriage discrimination is not limited to same-sex marriage, but extends to interracial, interfaith, and interdenominational marriage. In the United States, interfaith and interdenominational marriages are neither prohibited nor regulated by the government, but may be subject to religious authority. For instance, Islamic Law allows for men to marry non-Muslim women while prohibiting women from marrying non-Muslim men.
Same-sex marriage seems to be following the path laid out by Loving v. Virginia, a case heard by the Supreme Court in 1967. The Supreme Court found anti-miscegenation legislation to be unconstitutional and the case eliminated discriminatory marriage restrictions based on race. Race and gender are both pre-determined characteristics and it is generally accepted that neither trait should restrict one's rights. I personally believe that sexual orientation is an innate trait and that those with "alternative orientations" should be allotted the same rights as the rest of the population. Even if I believed that homosexuality was a conscious decision, I cannot see why such a marriage should be treated differently by the government.
The Sanctity of Marriage
The author explains that while she is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, she does not believe that homosexuals should be ridiculed or ostracized for their views on same-sex marriage. One issue I have with her statement is that it implies that only homosexuals support the elimination of marriage discrimination. In reality, 48 percent of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage while fewer than 4 percent of Americans identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.
As far as I can tell, legalizing same-sex marriage would only have a tangible impact on homosexuals. I doubt that a majority of the 52 percent of Americans that oppose same-sex marriage have actually met a homosexual, let alone a homosexual couple. Legislation disallowing same-sex marriage is intended to prevent approximately 10 million people from offending the delicate sensibilities of 163 million people they may never knowingly meet or interact with. I would like to note that the Constitution does not guarantee citizens the right to live a life free from religiously dictated moral discomfort.
The author suggests that same-sex marriage "greatly weakens the definition and respect for the institution of marriage" and that it should not be taken lightly. I fail to see how same-sex marriage would weaken the definition of marriage as the United States did not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman until 1996 when the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law. Also, it seems a bit naive to me for the author to insinuate that there is widespread respect for the institution of marriage. We live in a country that allows you to be joined in holy matrimony from the comfort of your vehicle at a drive through chapel. It is also completely legal for a man to buy a wife from an "international marriage agency." I could see how these two acts could be viewed as reverence for the act of marriage because, you know, because nothing says love like the sound of an idling car and because buying women off the internet sounds totally legit.
The author affirms that "marriage has always been--and should always be--a ceremony that joins together one man and one woman." While I was not raised in a Christian household, nor am I a Christian now, I know that statement to be false. I mention that I am not Christian because I am certain the author is basing the statement on what she believes the Bible says about marriage. There are a number of Biblically defined forms of marriage, most of which have been rejected by modern society.
She also claims that homosexual couples are threatening to "wipe out the foundation lines of marriage," presumably because having a matching set of genitalia limits a couple's ability to shoulder the responsibilities of marriage and therefore ineligible to enjoy the rights or benefits of marriage.
The Nuclear Family
The author defines "family" as a household consisting of one man, one woman, and their biological children. She focuses completely on the idea that same-sex couples are altering how "family" is defined, but I have to assume that she also disapproves of single-parent households. These single-parent households, even those including households headed by widows, are considered non-traditional. Obviously, her opposition would also have to be extended to families with foster children or adopted children as they are not true members of the family unit as defined above.
The author considers procreation to be an "understood expectation" of married couples. Perhaps the Defense of Marriage Act should be amended to disallow infertile members of the population from marrying as well. We must, after all, preserve the human race by only allowing fertile individuals to marry. Procreation is as necessary today as it was a few thousand years ago and the 104 thousand adoptable children in the United States should be ignored because adopted children are somehow inferior to biological children.
Gender Roles
The author explains that the "children...brought into the circle of gay couples would certainly grow confused about gender roles and expectations..." Perhaps I am mistaken, but the gender roles and expectations referred to have been rejected by the general population for a number of years. Marriage is about the commitment and partnership between two people, not about who is expected to maintain the home and who is expected to earn a salary.
I suppose I should forget about raising a family because my husband is in the military. It would only confuse our hypothetical children because I would, for the majority of the time, be the only parent present. Although, I suppose that we should never have been permitted to marry in the first place because infertility negates the purpose of our marriage. We could always adopt children, but that would be too non-traditional and obviously ruin their lives.
Children
The author writes about how we should think about the children when considering the legalization of same-sex marriage. She attempts to prove that children would be negatively impacted if raised by homosexual parents, but only provides a weak sentiment about the importance of gender roles in a child's development and the severity of its effects. The American Psychological Association determined that the effectiveness of parenting is unrelated to a parent's sexual orientation. The study found that children raised by homosexual parents were just as likely to flourish as children raised by heterosexual parents. This either indicates that the author's claim that children are negatively impacted is false or that heterosexual couples should not be allowed to raise children either.
As stated previously, there are over 100 thousand children in the United States waiting to be adopted. Refusing to allow homosexual couples to adopt children based on what feels true is inadequate, especially when doing so requires that you ignore consistent research. Perhaps the individuals that abhor the idea of same-sex couples raising children should seriously consider whether or not being raised by the government is truly in the best interest of these children.
The Future of Marriage
The author concludes her entry by implying that the legalization of same-sex marriages would allow for future alterations to marriage. She naively asserts that it will degrade the act of marriage and could potentially lead to marriages based on mutual legal benefits. Heterosexual couples have been degrading the "sanctity of marriage" for years and already marry for a number of legal and monetary benefits.
She continues by explaining that nothing could prevent the legalization of polygamy and polyandry if same-sex marriage were legalized. Polygamy is a Biblical form of marriage, so I can only assume that repealing the laws that banned it would actually be taking a step toward restoring the "original" Biblical definition of marriage.
P.S. I would like to note that "The Other Colbert Report" is a misleading title for the author's blog. Its entries are neither witty nor informative and certainly not what one would consider to be a parody of the liberal viewpoint. The only semblance to The Colbert Report that I found was a shared surname and use of "truthiness." While Stephen Colbert uses it as a tool to help inform people, the author uses it because she actually believes that what she is saying is true.
P.P.S. After completing this entry I noticed that "The Threat of Same Sex Marriage" is a slightly altered version of the author's previous entry. Neither entry really tells the audience anything and any claims made are merely conjecture. I'm not entirely sure why the author chose to reuse the previous assignment, especially without actually adding anything to her stance on the topic.
P.P.S. After completing this entry I noticed that "The Threat of Same Sex Marriage" is a slightly altered version of the author's previous entry. Neither entry really tells the audience anything and any claims made are merely conjecture. I'm not entirely sure why the author chose to reuse the previous assignment, especially without actually adding anything to her stance on the topic.