A different issue: Same-Sex Marriage

As part of the requirement to successfully complete my blog, I have chosen two articles from a book called Same Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum.


“The Bells Are Ringing…Marriage, Marriage, Everywhere” by John O’Sullivan

In this article, John O’Sullivan from the National Review, Inc., discusses his viewpoints against same sex marriage. O’Sullivan identifies various elements of the politics of culture. The first of these elements of culture are the private and public sectors that are affected by same sex marriage. O’Sullivan refers to the public institution of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the New York Times, the social movements of the 1964 Civil Right Act, family, and the identity of the entire Western world. With regards to the forms of the elements of the political culture, O’Sullivan relates to the “construction and naturalization of discourses” of the ideology of gay marriage. He argues that there will be two revolutions of the discourse of marriage: there must be a religious revival and limitations placed on judicial review.


“A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage” by Jack McKinney

In his article, “A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” Jack McKinney is arguing in support for gay marriage. His main arguments lie within various elements. First, McKinney refers to a Virginian statute that at one point in history forbade interracial marriage. He believes there is a discrimination against sexual minorities. He argues that marriage is a civil right and he blames the church for the denial of such a basic civil right. He refers to the biblical lives and messages of Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle to show that . . . . .. To summarize even more briefly, McKinney is taking a very religious viewpoint on the “yea” side of the line to same sex marriage. He is co-opting the religious claims of the orthodox and making them liberal.


The dominant frame here is that of a religious argument. One is saying that there must be a religious revival to sanctify marriage within the political system while the other is arguing that in religion there is no discrimination.

McKinney makes several references to the past and religion, citing the Bible. For example, Jesus and Paul symbolized equality and non-discrimination of all types of people during their lifetime, which is also prophesized in the Bible. He relates this religious view from the past to today’s struggle of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and, now, sexual orientation.

O’Sullivan offered a solution to the debate of same sex marriage. He suggests that society and government will then have created three recognized types of “marriage” institutions. The first is the traditional church marriage that is not from the government and only between a man and a woman. The second type of institutional marriage is a civil marriage, which would be open to any combination of genders between two people. The third result from legislation would be household partnerships that would permit any number of people to have a partnership. O’Sullivan suggests that these are the results if “gay marriage is to be forced on us by nondemocratic bodies,” meaning from the changing of societal norms.

So what is the moral decision to make on this issue? Is marriage defined in religious terms only between a man and woman or is it another forum where discrimination exists? It is obvious that in today’s society there is a changing marriage trend additional to the debate of same sex marriage. Divorce rates are increasing and the traditional family ideal is evaporating as there are more and more single mothers raising their children. The problem we face is the difficulty of defining what is a marriage and there must be pressure placed upon legislatures to conitue the fight to define marriage between a man and woman. Otherwise, the conventional term of marriage must be abolished. I foresee an eventual deterioration of what marriage is suppose to be and the family.