In his June 11 column KSU Professor Melvyn Fein demonstrates his preference for the status quo — regardless of the morality of his position and without any regard for the facts. The role of “Big Brother” in society is fine for Fein, as long as it supports his conservative views. In defense of his position, he cites tradition and, of all things, habit. Tradition and habit have never been rational reasons for denying people the personal right to choose their own lifestyles, as long as they do not interfere with the safety or the rights of others.
Blue laws, segregation laws, separate-but-equal laws, slave laws — all supported tradition. Smoking in public places or any other place is a habit still practiced by many. Using racial slurs is a habit for many. Putting our trust in traditions and habits can be dangerous for society.
Fein suggests homosexual marriages would in some way be more arbitrary than unions between heterosexuals. However, in his editorial, although saying that “not all do” keep their marriage vows, Fein fails to note that almost 50 percent of all first marriages [heterosexual unions] end in divorce: certainly not a tribute to the sanctity of marriage. In fact, divorce has become a habit with some people.
Sadly, these divorces often result in a lack of commitment to the children born to those unions. Legalizing same-sex marriages will not increase these numbers.
When I was married 62 years ago by a preacher, I vowed to enter into a state of holy matrimony: a religious sacrament. God blessed our marriage; government provided the contract: the marriage license. The role of government should be to provide legal protection for those who enter into a lawful and binding contract to create a family unit: a contract that will protect both spouses and any children that become part of that family unit.
Government does not have the right to define who the parties of any contract can be. Defining a marriage as a union between a man and a woman will not reduce the number of divorces or provide support for the children of those couples who find they can no longer honor their vows.
Finally, government should not be asked or allowed to deny the privileges of freedom — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — to any of its citizens, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference.
Ann Rich
Powder Springs
Follow us on Twitter!
I am just waiting to see how all the gay "partners" who receive "partners benefits" thru their partners employment handle it when their partners employer tells them "no more partners benefits...get married to your partner, or else lose your benefits". Trust me, we are going to be hearing some big time whining from the dumb masses of the gay community as they realize its time to put up or start being treated like the hetero community.
Simple. For even you, Anonymous, to understand
Why do you care? You think somehow if there are too many gays you will catch gay or something?
There is no logical reason not to recognize gay marriage, and there is no reason at all sited in the lame comments to this article. How can you be a true conservative (don't tread on me, less government, etc.) and want the government deciding who can marry someone. It's just hate spewed from hypocritical pseudo religious bigots. So glad I left Cobb.
All of it goes out the window, however, when they seek to impose their interpretation of "morality" on the rest of us. Then the government should deny rights to those with whom they disagree.
Once again with feeble liberal arguments. Actually with the latest science post menopausal women can, and a few do, bear children. Even with nan implant, a man cannot conceive, nor was he intended to conceive. But the twisted thinking of folks like you has you conceive inconceivable arguments.
Well written, well expressed.
Perhaps your relationships rely solely on the biological mechanics of childbirth and all that that entails, but many heterosexual relationships don't.
How is an argument inconceivable? That makes no sense. If someone comes up with it, it's conceivable. Or have you gotten all of your vocabulary lessons from the Princess Bride?
You are almost correct--a LARGE - number of animal species practice homosexual and other non traditional (for humans) acts.
You were not in class the day that it was explained that we, human, are supposed to be a higher form of animal life. Burdened with higher intellects and the ability to understand the concept of a divine being (and accept it or reject it).
You compare a dog mounting a human's leg with the procreative and cognitive knowledge that humans are supposed to have. I hope you do not sit next to me at a public meeting.
Might want to as OldDaveNJ that question, as he can't seem to get anyone to engage in his liberal blog talking points. He just can't seem to grasp that the MDJ group here is pretty sophisticated and does not allow itself to promote the same tired worn out left wing talking points. Dave might want to try the Huffington Puffington Post or the Daily Kos Kids which would be more to his liking.
Did you ever consider the fact you may not be saying anything anyone is interested in or maybe you are just not making any sense? Blaming someone or something else is common practice of liberals.
That's the best comment so far. Maybe you can help OldDaveNJ make comments like that, since he's not doing too well with his comments here.
Point out ONE instance where YOU personally were called a name? You can't, Dave. Only liberal posters engage in name calling, and since your political positions are liberal, you will note that no one has called you any names. Name calling is strictly a characteristic of the liberal left, since they lack any substantive comments. Try again. Moreover, when people recognize your liberal talking points and will not respond to them, that is NOT name calling, Dave. Your frustration is understandable, most liberal types do get upset, when no one will listen to them.
I won't attempt to defend Melvyn Fein's article, but with respect, I will make a few comments on your understanding of traditions.
Traditions are common understanding passed down through generations. Traditions are not invented, but grow out of circumstances that are so common as to be recognized as critical to community life. Traditions survive so long as they continue to serve society.
The "tradition" of marriage has served effectively
for thousands of years because it continued to be a proven benefit to society. On the other hand, gay coupling has never developed a tradition as a benefit to society.
The retched state of marriage and family is well known; but adding a gay component will only make it worse.
Also,questioning tradition might not give the results desired: The Old Testament contains some of our oldest traditions.
"The "tradition" under discussion certainly has NOT served same-gender couples and their families well."
In practicality, starting from birth, with no stops on the path to adulthood in "traditional" relationships,a same sex couple cannot, naturally have a family. Via divorce, adoption and other means there are "legal" families, but not "natural" families.
The tradition you mention was not intended to serve same-gender families well. Many folks back in the day, knew little about those couples. Those same couples weer not so brave as to come and stand in public and demand equal rights.
Note again, I did not take a side in this issue, just sayin'.
You cannot have it both ways. That is a well known tactic of the American left, exposed a long time ago. Try again. Only a liberal would try to reconcile two things which are diametrically opposed to one another.
A constitutionally valid argument you say? Wow! Everything here is highly subjective, so you really need to go back and take another look at your request? Homosexual marriage cannot be found, either in a spiritual, secular, or even a legal basis. Thus, try as might, there is no premise. You see now, right? You could try working your stance from baseless logic, and I think you could get some traction that way?
"Religiously-tinged word?" Your Christophobia is hanging out for all to see. Your introduction of Christophobia into this discussion exposes the bigotry you have for Christians.
Logic is precisely my point and comment. Perhaps it is YOU who should try to comprehend? Moreover, your defensive posture says much.
The fourth paragraph belongs with the third paragraph. I separated them to emphasize the message in paragraph four. See below:
Fein suggests homosexual marriages would in some way be more arbitrary than unions between heterosexuals. However, in his editorial, although saying that “not all do” keep their marriage vows, Fein fails to note that almost 50 percent of all first marriages [heterosexual unions] end in divorce: certainly not a tribute to the sanctity of marriage. In fact, divorce has become a habit with some people.
Sadly, these divorces often result in a lack of commitment to the children born to those unions. Legalizing same-sex marriages will not increase these numbers.
My logic here is a response to Professor Fein's argument that heterosexual marriages provide a greater commitment to the family unit than homosexual marriages would. Obviously, statistics prove that they do not and would not.
In response to your other remark--of course, I proofread my letter. Did you proofread your comment? If so, you need to work on your understanding of correct punctuation. Of course, that silly comment has nothing to do with the logic of the ideas expressed by either of us.
The real support for my stand is provided in paragraph five, which explains that marriages are santified by the church. The decision whether or not a couple can be united in holy matrimony should rest with the church--not the government. Do you really want the government telling you how to practice your religion in your church?
Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal - ‘Tradition’ poor excuse to oppose gay marriage