Ok, I know I said no more election posts. However, I recently saw a link to an opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun on Facebook and had to comment on on particular part of the piece.
First off, the piece is by Matt Birk, who plays for the Baltimore Ravens. I don't watch football (and really don't care about it), so I don't know this guy from Adam. I must say that most of the piece is your standard boiler plate anti-gay marriage fare. How it is best for children to be raised by a mom and dad, how marriage is sacred, etc. Then there was this paragraph:
If marriage is only about recognizing the love between
two people, then why shouldn't the government bestow
the benefits of marriage on two elderly sisters living
together? Or two heterosexual men who are college
roommates? If Maryland dismantles marriage, then what
is the rational basis for deciding which relationships the
government will recognize?
First, the comparisons that are made are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand. How are two sisters living together (presumably non-incestously) or two roommates comparable to a loving relationship between two gay men or two lesbians? Answer: THEY'RE NOT! These comparisons are so far off that I am forced to wonder about either his intelligence, his logical abilities, or his honesty. I do not understand how anyone can make this argument with a straight face. Even my brother, who is against Question 6, looked at this argument and said that it was one of the worst defenses he had ever heard.
What is worse, the Maryland Conference of Catholic Bishops linked to this on their Facebook page (which is how I saw it) which is giving it at least tacit approval and agreement. This is the sort of argument that turns alot of people off to religious institutions. After all, if the leaders of a religion are going to agree with such a weak argument, does that mean that the followers of that religion are going to have to turn their brains off to agree with it as well? I know I don't, not do many other Catholics (and I am not only talking about supporters of Question 6).
Then there was the last statement. While not especially problematic (I have raised this concern myself), if you remember in my October 17th post, I had a friend who made a very interesting suggestion. Eliminate marriage from the legal lexicon and recognize both same-sex and different sex relationships for tax and legal purposes. Now, would the same apply to polyamorous relationships? That is a story for a whole other time.