The state senator leading the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania said yesterday that in the many dozens of conversations he has had with supporters of traditional marriage, he has never once heard a “rational” argument for keeping marriage as it is.

Daylin Leach, a Democrat, has introduced a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Though he appears to make friendly overtures to opponents of traditional marriage, he trivializes and ridicules their concerns. He said fears that same-sex marriage could ultimately lead to group marriage or marriage between friends or relatives were silly, comparable to worrying the state might sanction marriage between a man and a lawn mower. 

Leach is delightfully open-minded. He just has never heard a reason for marriage between a man and a woman that wasn’t based on irrational prejudice and religious sentiment. “That’s not my religion,” he said, speaking on Dom Giordano’s talk show.  A civil institution that is thousands of years old, a tradition that predates Christianity, that was alive and well in the ancient world despite open homosexuality, is founded on irrationality and small-mindedness.

Here’s a question I have for Mr. Leach. If marriage between a man and a woman is irrational, why did it ever come into existence in the first place? Why has it lasted so long?

A man and a woman together are the indivisible unit of procreation. Is that wild opinion? Does Leach know of any human being conceived without the biological input of both a man and a woman? 

Studies – not opinions – show that children raised in homes with both a father and a mother fare remarkably better in life than those who grow up with just one or the other. A man and a woman are not just the indivisible unit of physical procreation. They are the indivisible unit of psychological procreation. Are these findings, which confirm over and over, that children have a universal desire and need for a father and a mother irrational? I would like the reasonable senator to explain. 

I sent the above to Leach’s office, but have not received a response. Pennsylvanians are also considering a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman. If Pennsylvania adopts this amendment, the stage is set for just the kind of battles that will ultimately necessitate a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. New Jersey is likely to have same-sex marriage soon. There will be inevitable custody disputes involving Pennsylvania and New Jersey couples given the proximity of the states. These battles will require federal resolution.

Rose writes:

You wrote:

“He said fears that same-sex marriage could ultimately lead to group marriage or marriage between friends or relatives were silly, comparable to worrying the state might sanction marriage between a man and a lawn mower.”

Oh, how I wish conservatives would stop using the ‘slippery slope’ argument for the simple reason that ‘gay marriage’ is worse than polygamous or incestuous marriage. Though I believe polygamy to be an inferior system to monogamy and do not want it practiced in the West, it is one with ample historical precedent as an effective means of social organization and reproduction. Its ultimate purpose, that of providing a system of sexual access to women and providing a home for the young is the same as that of monogamy and any resulting off-spring at least have both a father and a mother (mothers?). Even allowing marriage between brothers and sisters would be less of a radical redefinition of the institution for at least such unions are fertile. The risk of birth defects is much higher but such problems not inevitable, especially now that genetic testing is available. Again, allowing either would be a terrible thing, but less terrible than what is already legal in a growing number of states.

Laura responds:

I hadn’t really thought about whether same-sex marriage is worse than these. I would agree it’s worse than polygamy. I prefer not to contemplate the relative merits of incestuous marriage.
 
The slippery slope argument is not the strongest rebuttal, although I do think it has some validity. Polygamy and incestuous marriage, as bad as they are, are not the most likely threats in that category. The expedient marriage among friends is. What’s to stop lonely friends from getting married simply to gain the tax breaks and insurance benefits, or even a mother and adult retarded son who live together non-sexually and want to be treated as a family unit? Marriage could become detached, not only from any procreative purpose, but from what homosexual advocates most associate with it: romantic love. The writer Wendell Berry has said that he believes that’s how marriage should be, a come-one, come-all partnership.

Rose writes:

Here I must diasgree with you and align myself with Screwtape, for like him I believe that the idea that romantic love is a necessary prerequisite for marrying to partly be at the root of the modern marriage crisis. I did not in fact know that a non-sexual marriage movement exists but if it comes down to a choice between evils, I would prefer a ‘a come-one, come-all partnership,’-system rather than exclusively homosexual ‘marriage.’ A, um, ‘non-discriminatory’ system at least would not promote or approve of homosexuality specifically.

Laura responds:

Whether romantic love is necessary to marriage or not is beside the point. The fact is, romantic love and  sexual desire are the only foundations homosexuals have for marriage. Even the marital ideal they most want affirmed could be lost.  A non-sexual marriage movement doesn’t exist now, of course. But, it could gradually evolve if marriage is changed.

Please follow and like us: