|
from Parenting & Family
The Binary Nature of Marriage:
The Point of Two
by Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
"Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the
definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and
understood by many societies for centuries."
--(Goodridge, et al vs. the Department of Public Health, pg 11)
With these weighty words, a simple majority of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ripped marriage from its historical, cultural and common law
foundation and reconstructed it as "an evolving paradigm." In simple terms,
marriage in Massachusetts is now whatever a majority of judges say it is, with
no foundation other than their sense of the direction the cultural wind is
blowing.
As I read the decision and noted the court's reasoning, I wondered what other
redefinitions might be on the horizon. The court opined that the state of
Massachusetts deprived gays and lesbians access to marriage because of a single
trait - their sexual orientation. This deprivation is now considered unfair
because the court holds as reasonable the analogy to skin color. Laws forbidding
the intermarriage of races are unconstitutional, and the court reasoned, so
should laws forbidding gays and lesbians from marrying each other. Clearly, the
court has accepted the spurious idea that being gay or lesbian is a given such
as is the color of one's skin.
But what of the "other" sexual orientation? Gays and lesbians who wish to marry
were bolstered by the redefinition of marriage to include "two spouses" rather
than "a man and woman." Where are bisexuals in this orgy of fairness? Bisexuals
are attracted to both sexes so if they are torn between two lovers, even after
the work of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is done, they still will
have to choose. Using the logic of the court, is this proper?
The Massachusetts court makes a great deal of the fact that the gay and lesbian
plaintiffs seeking same sex marriage did not "attack the binary nature of
marriage..." This is another way of saying that those bringing the suit did not
seek to redefine marriage from two people making a pact to three or more people
making such an agreement. The plaintiffs attacked the male-female nature of
marriage but not marriage as a union of two. Not yet, at least. Bisexuals who
wish to gratify both attractions in one relationship may be next looking for a
day in court.
While we are all reflecting on such things, it is worth asking, where did the
binary nature of marriage come from? In other words, why is "two" important?
Two comes from two genders, male and female. From the beginning, it has been so.
Now that this foundation has been deconstructed as unnecessary, does the binary
nature of marriage that the Massachusetts court was so proud of preserving
matter that much? If husband and wife are not sacred and worth preserving, then
why is "two" sacred? Why not three or four? Hello, allow me to introduce the
Smiths: Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice and their six children.
There are those who will read this and hear impishness or even sarcasm in this
essay. Not so. I am serious. If marriage can be defined by judicial fiat based
on an often-transient set of personal preferences then what else will be changed
to address fairness for other human whims?
Torn between two lovers? Give the courts time and maybe they can torture the
binary nature of marriage into history along with husband and wife.
Warren Throckmorton is Director of
College Counseling and an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City
College. His research "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the
Change Process for Ex-Gays," was published in the June 2002 issue of the
American Psychological Association's publication Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice. His websites are www.truthcomesout.com and
www.drthrockmorton.com.
Updated: 8 February 2008
|
