The QiRanger Adventures

Deep in Thought

As time moves forward, I’m always amazed when someone puts forth an argument that is so irrational it utterly destroys their credibility. Case in point – the recent decision of Connecticut to allow same-sex marriages. Please let me state that I fully support this decision and what I find laughable is posted in an article printed in the New York Times surrounding some of the testimony opposing such unions.

Patricia and Wesley Galloway testified before the court that while they were religious, they opposed the establishment of same-sex marriages because of the following:

It takes a man and a woman to create children and thus create a family.

The article went on to “discuss” how this couple was trying to use biology to deter the court from lifting the ban on same-sex marriage. From the start their argument was flawed on two counts. Please let me explain.

First, the Galloways claim that it takes a man and a woman to create children. This is true (although with since an actual physical union is no longer needed). The statement also continues to infer that children are the root of marriage and family. Thus, by their reasoning, the chain of events is this: Man meets women, they decide get married and have children.

Now there is countless data to support both sides of arguments on the psychological health of single-parent raised children, heterosexually-parented raised children, and homosexually-parented children. That information isn’t needed. What I find flawed is that this 60-year-old, childless couple, is advocating the reason to marry is to have and raise children.

This is something I do agree with. I’ve stated before that the term marriage is a religious one used to define a union between a man and a woman with the intent to raise a family. The Galloways got that part right; however, the idea does not translate into secular circles because of it’s implications. Using this narrow definition of religious marriage, same-sex and hetero-sexual couples that do not intend to have children would both be excluded from marriage. Since the Galloways have no children, they do not meet the standards of a religious marriage.

A Video...

This heightens the second flaw in their argument. The secularity of marriage today. Beginning in the 1500s, governments have intruded where Clergy once governed in the pursuit of money. The reason today governments have requirements on who can and cannot marry is simply to collect, taxes, establish rights of property transfer, and accountability of debt. Governments profess to be concerned about “the family,” but their actions show something entirely else.

Given this, governments need to “come clean” and act above board and eliminate the term marriage from their statutes. The term Civil Union best suits the joining of two adults for the purpose of tax collection, property disbursement, and debt allocation. Let marriage return to the domain of the clergy.

The Galloways failed to recognize this relationship, thus eliminating their argument on a second front.