I’ve finally seen some internet writing on gay marriage that makes sense – a reader writing in to Andrew Sullivan, who makes a nice, tempered, intelligent reply. The problem with the gay marriage campaign has been that marriage is not a right, but, as the above reader describes it, “a social institution.” It is a socially approved form of relationship. Society has the right to confer or deny that approval. I believe that it is absolutely imperative for society to assert its power here. Gay marriage is (to me) not a threat to marriage in the least. But a court-established “right to marriage” is a huge threat, because the cultural shape of the institution will not stand against a “right” to marry, especially when marriage can also be interpreted as a crucial part of the free exercise of religion. Very fragile cultural growths such as the equality of women are built on institutions like monogamous marriage. The institution will grow and change over time – naturally and organically – but for a tiny minority to tamper with it invites problems. Sullivan deals with this perfectly – this, he says, is the reason why broad-based social change in attitudes is better than judicial fiat.
5 Comments