Let me start by saying I wrote this as I am to appear in a model Legislative hearing in the morning. I was assigned a proposal and a position. This ariticle may or may not reflect my opinion about the issue but I was interested in yours. I tried very hard to avoid value based reasoning.
joa
Point 1: Definition
In order to provide a stable foundation for communication within our society and through the ages regarding fundamental components, it is imperative that societies consider carefully any changes in definition to core societal concepts as change in meaning may change their essence and thereby destroy the uniqueness indicated by their name. The definition of marriage has always implied heterosexuality. The word ‘marriage’, from the Latin maritare, linguistically has built into it the idea of procreation. Maritare not only means to marry but also to impregnate, which is why commentators would speak of women simultaneously being married and impregnated. Historically in the West, even in non-Christian cultures, the very idea of “gay marriage” would have been an oxymoron.
This definition has endured and has been used in the most informal settings and in the highest courts in the land. It is a term that is widely understood and accepted. It’s implications cover a broad spectrum including: social, moral, legal and fiscal in our society. Opponents of this bill would try to convince us that to expand the meaning of this word is not to change its essence but merely to include a broader sector of society within its constructs.
With that idea in mind, I ask you to consider the inconsequential word “giraffe”. This word is not merely a combination of letters but rather communicates the essence of a very unique living creature. To expand its meaning to include species with shorter necks would diminish to extinction the original intent of its name. In other words, there would no longer be a term that described the unusual creature we have all come to know as “giraffe”.
When I spoke the word “giraffe”, we all got a similar picture in our mind. This type of common understanding is important in communication within a society; however, consider the consequential difference when describing an unusual animal as opposed to a fundamental institution within our society such as marriage. The “expansion” of the meaning of marriage beyond one man and one woman is to destroy the essential uniqueness of the relationship that actually constitutes a marriage. Just as expanding the meaning of “giraffe” to include species with shorter necks would diminish to extinction its original intent, so the expansion of the word “marriage” to include any other definition than a man and a woman would be the extinction of marriage itself. Therefore in order to preserve the essence and intent of meaning for the purpose of communication and understanding within our society expressed by the word “marriage “ we must not expand or enhance its meaning in any way.
Point 2: History
Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of both religious institutions and the impact of the Industrial Revolution. In ancient Greece marriage was seen as a fundamental social institution and has continued to be viewed as such in every society, regardless of its culture, through modern times
Though the institution of marriage has under gone many changes since it’s origination in ancient societies, the basic premise of marriage has not. Marriage continues to mean, from both a private and civil perspective the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. The fact that the institution of marriage has survived over 3000 years as we know it today is in itself a powerful testimony to the necessity to its preservation.
Opponents of this bill would try to convince us that changing trends in social sexual relationships are grounds enough for change however, consider the Romans, a much more sexually permissive society, unconstrained by moral code which tolerated prostitution, concubinage, and had no qualms about homosexual relationships and yet never considered altering the structure of marriage to include other relationships. Based on historic precedence, we can only conclude that even when society is sexually permissive; it does not constitute reason or .right to challenge the basic institution called marriage.
In 384 BC, Aristotle said, “It is useful, in framing laws, not only to study the past history of one’s own county. In order to understand which constitution is desirable for it now, but also to have a knowledge of the constitutions of other nations and so to learn for what kinds of nation the various kinds of constitution are suited. When these have been studied we shall perhaps be more likely to see with a comprehensive view, which constitution is best, and how each must be ordered, and what laws and customs it must use, if it is to be at its best.”
A study of the institution of marriage historically clearly proclaims the necessity of its preservation in society as we now know it. Simply put, while nations have risen and fallen, laws, moral codes, and customs have changed dramatically, society throughout history has recognized marriage as a fundamental building block and therefore has preserved its definition. It would be both arrogant and foolish for us to do otherwise.