|
What God has joined together, let no one separate.”
That’s what the Bible says. So now that the state Legislature has agreed to heed those who want to put the Protection of Marriage Amendment to a public vote, it might be time to see just how much protection that amendment really provides.
The amendment, authored by the Coalition for Marriage and Family, would, if approved, define marriage as between a man and a woman, and would prohibit any new same-sex marriages in Massachusetts. The amendment doesn’t attempt to revoke marriage licenses already granted.
On its Web site, Vote On Marriage.org, the sponsoring organization for the amendment, turns to Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization, to supply arguments as to why same-sex marriage poses a threat to the institution of marriage as well as to families and children.
“[Marriage] was established by God … and we tamper with it at our own peril,” writes Glenn T. Stanton for Focus on the Family, establishing a religious argument for denying homosexuals and lesbians the right to wed.
But if the right to a civil marriage is going to be granted or denied based on religious grounds, why half step? There certainly are others out there who should also be denied the right to marry.
Matthew 5:32 says that “anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” And Matthew 19:9 says that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” So how about making it illegal for divorced men and women to re-marry unless their divorce was the result of adultery. Better yet, why not just get our divorce laws in line with the Good Book. Since Matthew doesn’t mention getting one’s skull repeatedly smashed against the wall by a drunk and abusive husband as grounds for divorce, that might be a problem. But what the heck, staying together for the kids’ sake is what’s important here.
Stanton (and by extension Vote On Marriage.org) takes the position that, “children truly need both a mom and a dad. It is cruel to intentionally deny them this. …. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. Likewise, the most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman.”
Extending that premise to argue against same-sex marriage, Stanton adds that “it is impossible for a homosexual couple to bestow that benefit — the presence of a father and a mother — on any child.”
That argument is filled with idealistic ignorance and false assumptions. It denies that there are many children and adults today whose lives would have been a lot better had they had one less parent. It fails to recognize the outstanding sons and daughters of single parents and homosexual couples in our society, and suggests that child rearing is the sole purpose for marriage.
But if this is truly what it believes, is The Coalition for Marriage and Family going to take the next logical step and put together a petition for an amendment to place tighter limits on heterosexual marriage and divorce? Don’t count on it.
No doubt, that among the 170,000 who signed petitions calling for a vote on the Protection of Marriage Amendment, there are those who honestly believe they are doing God’s work. And there are probably some who would welcome laws that place greater limits on divorce and re-marriage. There are likely others who are simply homophobic hypocrites who’ve wrapped themselves up in religion while stopping short of calling for any change that would alter their own rights to marry, remarry or divorce.
There is no groundswell movement to take the protection of marriage movement to its logical conclusion and have civil marriages between heterosexual couples also regulated according to conservative Christian doctrine. And since there isn’t, the movement to impose religious restrictions on homosexuals must be seen for what it is: a simple suppression of civil rights.
| 
