Columnist's argument flawed again

As he did last year, Nathan Carleton misses the point on an important social issue. By asking whether society should “marry gays” instead of whether gays should “be allowed to get married,” Carleton misrepresents marriage and its historical use. Marriage as an institution exists to control, not protect, women. Modern Anglo-European culture developed from three main traditions—the Roman, the Germanic and the Judeo-Christian—each of which gives men a favored status, particularly within the realm of the domestic sphere. If we broaden this perspective to include cultures where bride price or dowry is the norm, we find that bride price turns women into property, while dowry usually falls into the hands of the husband or his family, thereby reinforcing women’s dependence on men.

I fear that Carleton’s notion of marriage derives from its appearance in our privileged society, and is most likely a symptom of the “postmodern condition.” Having thus diagnosed Carleton’s disease, let’s find a cure. Carleton’s explanation of the logical fallacy in legalizing gay marriage actually amounts to a critique of all marriage if we view marriage as a religious institution which offers political benefit. If instead we see marriage as a political institution offering political benefits to the state (and religious benefits to those who need them), the picture is very different. Homosexual couples offer the same commitment to each other that straight ones do and therefore can offer the same benefits to the state, provided more people gain the understanding of homosexuality that Carleton so disparages. Carleton pretends to examine gay marriage from a political standpoint while actually looking through a religious lens. In a country where church and state are ostensibly separate, it is this type of rhetoric that we must be most careful of, as it presents the most pressing danger to our American system. Allowing our government to deny legal protection to citizens based on sexual preference is a dangerous step toward removing other civil rights. Perhaps for Carleton this makes sense. To me, it does not.

George Gilbert

Trinity ’06