Peggy Chang
In November 2008, Californians voted against same-sex marriage, months after it was legalized by the state’s top court, presumably in fear of harming the sacredness of “holy matrimony.” Days later, Darren Hayes, a renowned singer and songwriter, posted a blog entry on MySpace giving his own definition of marriage. In a nutshell, he said, he and Richard, his gay companion, “want to grow old together.” What’s so wrong about wanting to grow old with one’s beloved? Same-sex marriages are sometimes thought to be religiously immoral, mainly because a same-sex couple is unable to procreate and that is against God’s will. But does marriage have to live up to Christian values? In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis remarks that “there ought to be two distinct types of marriage; one governed by the state with rules enforced by all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her by her own members.” In other words, not all people are Christian and therefore cannot be expected to live Christian lives. The same is true in the U.S., an even less Christian country than England because of its greater cultural diversity. It thus seems ironic that the U.S. is trying to impose Christocentric values and permanently discriminate against one minority group, while at the same time its brags about its freedom and diversity to rest of the world. This debate would be vastly simplified if religious marriage and civil marriage were decoupled. Is it possible that people could make civil marriage contracts approved by a civil court, and leave spiritual marriage to a definition based on their own religion? I claimed that the basis for most opposition to a gender-neutral definition of marriage is religion. We may further simplify the debate thus: should the constitution of California or of the entire U.S. be amended simply for the purpose of enforcing a religious objection to a certain kind of marriage? Despite the fact that same-sex marriages cannot produce children, is the love between a homosexual couple any different from a heterosexual one? Both should have the right to grow old together and to share their lives with their companions. Both would be monogamous and faithful, even if sometimes they might argue over which end of the tube to squeeze the toothpaste from. Certainly there are polygamous or unfaithful homosexuals, yet heterosexuals are the same. They are all human beings, the only difference being sexual preference, those whom they love. I wonder: should people be condemned only because they are in love with someone who happens to be of the same gender? Martin Luther King had a dream that his four children would one day “live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Here I would like to draw a comparison with same-sex marriage. A marriage should not be judged by its capacity to produce children, but by its contents: affection, affirmation, faith, and love. Most Americans are proud that they live in a supposedly color-blind society: they judge people not from how they look, but from what they do or what they are. I would like to see a world that is gender-blind as well as color-blind; I like Darren Hayes for many reasons, his songs, his depth of thinking, his self-reflection, and his passion for music, none of which has anything to do with his sexual preference. a
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Authors
The Taida Student Journal has been active since 1995 with an ever-changing roster of student journalists at NTU. Click the above link to read about the authors Archives
May 2024
|