A Few Responses

I thank Brian, Alan, Deric, and Teresa for their kind comments.  I am not confusing kindness or empathy with approval.  Naturally, I would like approval.  But Dad has been repeating your sentiments for years.  He often reminds me that he loves me unconditionally and that he does not approve,  I have no reason to doubt either statement.  

Brian mentioned the use of the word 'marriage' as it may apply to gay couples.  His comment is that the word ought to be reserved for straight people.   Actually Nick and I have long said that we don't care what it is called, we just want access to the same civil benefits that help straight people get along in life.  For me personally, I don't like the idea of marriage for the two of us.  A piece of paper  and/or public approval/recognition won't change my dedication to him.  But I do recognize that for many gay and lesbian couples, the word marriage signals to them maybe more that it does to me.  I imagine that it is as emotional for them to use the word marriage as it seems to be for many straights who feel like they are not ready to broaden the scope of the concept.  I support gays in this effort, but I just don't feel their passion for the word.  I do feel an ardent desire for equal access to the same benefits and considerations bestowed by government and in some cases, and by extension,  businesses.

Alan posed the question of whether marriage ought to be considered a limited or an unlimited right.  I think that the answer is limited.  Undeniably, society must set those limits and those limits logically ought to benefit society and individuals as much as possible.   However, the boundaries of those limits are subject to change.  Two obvious examples in this country:  there was a time when blacks as slaves were not allowed to marry between themselves in this country.  The limit was expanded.  There was a time when interracial marriage was not allowed.  The limit was expanded.  As well, consider that the limits regarding marriage are relative to culture establishing the notion that absolutes regarding marriage are not a given.  In Muslim countries, a man may choose up to four wives as established by Islamic law.   In many countries gay marriage is legal.  Given that marriage is not an absolute immutable right, it is reasonable to assume expansion of limits might occur.  The reasons for denying or accepting a change has been debated in the past and is being debated again.  New social realities require new debate.  Just as in the past, a new social reality is demanding this debate.   I only maintain that in a secular society, religious reasons for disallowing change in limits of marriage rights ought to carry little weight, otherwise the religious reasons wield too much power over those who are not religious or who hold different religious convictions.  It does become an imposition of religious beliefs on others.  

Likewise, marriage and purposes for marrying are no longer necessarily the same as they have been in the past.  The world is more complicated and marriage is indeed used by the government (regardless of the original purposes of marriage) in decision making regarding taxes, joint medical benefits, whatever.  The procreation of children and of creating a family is no longer the only reason for marriage.  Obviously a great many people who have no intention of having children, who are too old to have children, who cannot have children are allowed to marry.  They are allowed to marry simply for love, to signal that love to the community, and perhaps, to gain access to civil benefits. Basically why would you say no to them?  It follows then that the same question can be applied to gay people who what to marry for the same reasons, why say no to them?  Sometimes, tradition is just tradition and is no barometer of what is fair or unfair.   It is also interesting to note that having children without a partner or marriage is very common.   

All of the beauties of marriage and procreation will continue to be with us.  Broadening the limits of marriage has historical and cultural precedent in this country and in others, and in no way will detract from the institution of marriage as it currently exists.