Homosexual Marriage Ban Upheld in New York Court
The New York Times reports on a decision by the New York Appellate Court to prevent same-sex marriages in New York City:
An appellate court yesterday reversed a lower court ruling that would have permitted same-sex marriage in New York City.The latter sentence is important as it not only speaks to the importance of upholding the definition of marriage as being a union between one man and one woman but also implicitly speaks to the popular argument that homosexual couples can provide everything for raising healthy families that hetero couples can. The Gotham Gazette, a New York publication on city news and policy, elaborates on the subject:
By a 4-1 majority, the appellate panel not only rejected the lower court's ruling that state law forbidding same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, but said that the state had a legitimate and rational interest in promoting heterosexual marriage.
The majority's 20-page decision offered a ringing defense of heterosexual marriage, which the court portrayed as an important way of ensuring child welfare and social stability.
Justice Milton Williams, writing for the majority of the First Department of the Appellate Division, in the case called Hernandez v. Robles, found that the current state law's prohibition of marriage to anyone other than male-female couples 'expresses an important, long-recognized public policy supporting, among other things, procreation, child welfare and social stability--all legitimate state interests.'The issue is clearly not settled as it is expected to quickly make its way to the Court of Appeals. However, it is still an important ruling as the court took the opportunity to highlight three important reasons (among others) of why homosexual marriage can and will damage societal structure in the long run.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 12/09/2005 05:00:00 PM
|
2 Comments:
There are married couples who don't have children, for various reasons. Are they therefore also contributing to the downfall of society?
Well, let's make sure we're on the same page here, Amy. Speaking of the "downfall of society" are your words. What I said was that homosexual marriage will lead to a damaging of our societal structure. I think the distinction is important.
While I do think the point you raised is an important issue to discuss (and it has been via Al Mohler and others), it is not really the point of this post to talk about the ethical questions of whether to have or hold off on children. The reason is that, though I think refusing to have children can lead to a decline in the population, I don't think it can damage the actual structure of society (unless it became really widespread, which doesn't seem to be the case).
However, homosexual marriage can and will lead to structural damage of society (and eventual downfall, to borrow your terms) for several reasons, one of which I will address now. Speaking to your connection, it will change the way families are made and sustained. Children already have two mommies or two daddies by homosexuals who are not married but have decided to live together and adopt or use some form of IVF, and it is a real possibility that other combinations will eventually develop. That's the point: once the practice becomes legal and the definition of marriage is changed, the door is literally thrown open for absolutely anything. Homosexual advocates argue against that because they say no one is wanting to marry their brother or their pet goat, but simply because there is no one at this point wanting to do these things is no argument against the possibility of someone wanting to in the future. There are plenty of sick ideas in our world. Remember, there was a time when no one was wanting to marry another of their own sex. Therefore, their argument makes no sense. The societal structure will be irreversibly changed and pandora's box will have been opened to any combination of "marriages" that people can think of and there will be no moral authority to stand up and say, "No, we will not allow that because it is wrong." What, exactly, constitutes "wrong" at that point?
I hope you see the distinction. Your issue can, indeed, damage society if it becomes widespread, in that it will eventually lead to a reduction of the population (and it may be an example of disobedience on the couples part), but it is unlikely it will change the structure of society. the issue to which I refer will be damaging from the get-go and will only worsen as it becomes nationally legal and more widespread.
If you want to explore other posts on this blog related to issues similar to the one you have brought up, I have written on In Vitro Fertilization and other traditional marrital and family issues. You can do a blog search on the main page and find them. Thanks for the comment, Amy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home