Wednesday, March 27, 2013

I wish they would ask this question at the Supreme Court:

With government recognition of same-sex marriage, what's to stop this type of relationship from becoming a marriage, and reaping the governmental benefits of marriage? And if it does, is that a good or bad thing for society?
One group of women sold their homes and bought a house together in Mount Lebanon, Pa., after they all got divorced. “It made amazing economic sense,” said one of the women, Jean McQuillin. McQuillin, Louise Machinist and Karen Bush call their home a “cooperative household.” Each woman has her own bedroom and bathroom, and they share the common areas of the house, chores and expenses.
If these women got married they could make even more economic sense. Does this then dilute the meaning of marriage? There is no law that you have to love each other (though that is the premise), there is no mandate to produce children, and who's going to check if you actually have sex? Now, you could easily say that this same mutation of marriage could happen between heterosexual, but platonic, couples as well. I am sure it already does happen but to a very small extent, but it's not the norm or even a recognized minority, and this aberration/alteration posited above seems much more likely to be the main thing that comes out of same-sex marriage. Possibly even more so than actual homosexual people joining the ranks of the married population.

In other words, although same-sex marriage is put forth as being every bit the same as heterosexual marriage except for the gender of the parties, its existence somehow much more freely opens the door to relationships that will not involve the same emotional devotion of marriage, and yet can benefit from the institution of marriage. Is that good public policy?

No comments:

Post a Comment