In Thomas Sowell’s column of November 5 - http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/11/05/affirmative_action_and_gay_marriage - Dr. Sowell mentions the length of time that marriage has existed for a long time, and that the rules and laws have evolved over that time based on that union being between one man and one woman:

“Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman. Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.”

One of the circumstances is the potential to produce children. In my previous post, Ken The Playful Walrus made a comment, and posted a link to one of his blog entries: http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2008/07/23/neutering_marriage_devalues_and_discourages_marriage.thtml.  Ken discusses here the connection of marriage to children, and I agree that the connection is strong, and I also agree that this connection has the potential to be undone by allowing same sex marriage. In addition to the points Ken makes, there is one other point that I haven’t heard or read mentioned, but it’s a point that has to be considered.

In many cases, there are prohibitions on who can marry. A brother cannot marry his sister, for example. A reason for this is the concern about recessive genetic disorders being passed to children and becoming active. If a brother and sister were to marry and produce children, there is the increased risk of genetic disorders being passed to the children.

For same sex couples, this is not a concern, because offspring cannot be produced. So this raises the question of, if same sex marriages are made legal, will a brother be allowed to marry his brother? If not, what will be cited as the rationale? If they will be allowed to marry, then will the prohibition on brother and sister marrying each other be allowed to stand? After all, if two brothers can marry each other, I can see the argument being made that a brother and sister should also be allowed to marry.

Admittedly this probably isn’t a huge concern, because I think the taboo on incest is so ingrained in American society that I can’t imagine siblings, whether same or opposite sex will ever want to marry in large numbers.

In my next entry, I’ll discuss the potential ramifications on the freedom of religion aspect.

In the aftermath of the 2008 elections, specifically with the passage of amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman in California, Arizona, and Florida, there have been a number of columns written on this issue.  I have some observations on the issue of gay marriage, and I plan to have at least two parts to my comments.  If I get too windy, I reserve the right to go to three or more parts.

First, I want to look at the politics of gay marriage.  In his column of November 10, Rod Dreher says here http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1108/dreher.php3:  “Similarly, though it's tough for social conservatives like me to admit it, we've lost the gay marriage battle, especially among the young.”  When I first read this, two thoughts came to mind.  How can anyone say that the gay marriage battle is lost, when every time, in every state, when amendments have been on the ballot defining marriage as one man and one woman, they have passed?  If citizens are voting this way, it looks to me that this is a battle that is anything but lost.

My other thought concerns the politics of this issue.  This issue is looked at as a conservative issue and a Republican issue.  However, looking specifically at California, that state went for Obama by a healthy margin, 61% to 37%.  California proposition 8 passed roughly 52.2% to 47.8%.  Just looking at the mathematics of those numbers, clearly many voters who voted for Obama had to have voted for proposition 8.  So considering the numbers, how is this issue solely a conservative/Republican issue?

Four years ago, here in Ohio, we had a similar amendment on the ballot, one that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.  It passed by a larger margin than Bush carried Ohio, so obviously the amendment had the support of some Kerry voters.  I personally know some Bush voters who voted against the amendment.  One friend put it like this:  “Let them (gays) suffer the same misery and torment I did in my two marriages”.

Considering this, why does the gay marriage issue get defined as a conservative vs. liberal issue, or a Republican vs. Democrat issue?  Clearly, defining marriage as one man and one woman enjoys bipartisan support, and also bipartisan opposition.

In my next part, I’ll dig into the issue more, specifically looking at Thomas Sowell’s column from November 5.