Todd Epp heaps such lavish praise on me for my position on gay marriage that I am suddenly uncertain about it. I stated the following in a post early Monday:
I had a piece published in the Aberdeen American News this morning on the Gay Marriage controversy in Massachusetts. I argue that no American constitution requires extending marriage rights to homosexual couples, but I end by coming down in favor of gay marriage.
Here are my reasons for favoring it:
First, as I stated in my American News piece, "If a man is lying unconscious in a hospital bed, should his male partner for the last 30 years not have the same rights of access and legal consent that a wife would have? I say yes."
Second, I think that some form of gay marriage is coming in most places anyway, and I think that creating alternative forms of marriage will further dilute the institution and hasten its decline.
Third, advocates of homosexual marriage have argued that it will encourage exclusive partnerships among gay men, and discourage promiscuity. I am not confident about this, but it reinforces the idea that marriage is about mutual obligations, long term fidelity, and exclusivity in sexual relationships. Again, I think that this strengthens marriage. Marriage is weak enough everywhere; if the homosexual community is really prepared to defend the institution I think this should be encouraged. Moreover, it might work and if it does, that would be a very good thing for the general welfare.
These arguments are not compelling. They are judgment calls, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Todd calls me brave for taking this position. As warm as that makes me feel, I don't think courage is yet required. I have no one to fear in taking such positions. At most it requires enough nerve on my part to risk offending some of my friends.
I will reply on the other side of the issue in my next post.
Recent Comments