In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

59 Chapter 4 Is Same-Sex Marriage a “Must” or a “Bust”? Obtaining a right does not always result in justice. Paula Ettlebrick1 H umor can be a seriously effective way to acknowledge the difficulty—and the delight—of putting conflicting issues into perspective, which is one of the ongoing tasks of ethical inquiry. As ethicist Daniel Maguire observes, “Often the cartoon is more insightful than the editorial.” Or, again, with a bit more solemnity he points out that humor is “good for ethics” because “humor has an epistemological function: it shakes the foundations of settled surety.”2 With that insight in mind, consider a cartoon that appeared during the presidency of George W. Bush when one social crisis seemed to follow quickly upon another. The president is pictured at a press conference with a reporter asking, “Mr. President, Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos, polar ice is melting, and the middle class is disappearing. What response do you have to all of that?” Mr. Bush replies, “Marriage is between a man and a woman.” Here the cartoonist’s humor hinges on briskly “[shaking] the foundations of settled surety” after juxtaposing three claims: first, that there are matters far more momentous than making marriage available for same-sex couples; second, that politicians may try to dodge difficult questions by “waving a red flag” about such private yet deeply contentious matters as homosexuality and family values; and third, that the conventional wisdom about marriage as an arrangement exclusively “between a man and a woman” is settled in a way that matters of war and peace (“Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos”), ecological degradation (“polar ice is melting”), and economic disruption (“the middle class is disappearing”) may never be. Perhaps so. But 60 | making love just doesn’t this cartoon’s punch line work because it suggests a more jarring reality? Even supposedly fixed verities about marriage and family are no longer quite so private , fixed, and unassailable. In fact, marriage, a personal relationship as well as a political institution, is both politically significant and culturally contested. Moreover, the outcome of the current marriage debate is far from certain. Therefore, ethical inquiry is needed not only about peacemaking, ecology, and economic policy, but also about the future of marriage and the eligibility of same-sex couples to participate in that civil and religious activity. What does it mean, then, to put same-sex marriage in proper perspective? n  A sampling of discordant perspectives about same-sex marriage Even a quick sampling indicates that multiple voices are in contention about this marriage question. One voice is that of marriage traditionalists. When Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was asked during the 2008 presidential election campaign about California’s ballot measure to restrict civil marriage to heterosexual couples only, he remarked, “[Proposition 8] is the most important thing nationally on the ballot. We have survived bad presidents. But many, many are convinced we will not survive [a] redefinition of marriage.”3 Glenn Stanton at Focus on the Family has argued similarly: “[So-called] same-sex ‘marriage,’” he asserts, “is being forced upon us by a small, but elite, group of individuals dressed in black robes—judges— who say that thousands of years of human history have simply been wrong. That is a very arrogant notion that will bring great harm to our culture.” “God bestowed [marriage] upon mankind [sic], and we tamper with it at our own peril.” “Redefining marriage in this way [is] the first step toward abolishing marriage and the family altogether .”4 Why so? Because marriage equality, Stanton argues, erases gender differences . If men can marry other men and women other women, “gender would become nothing,” he conjectures, “[even though] real, deep, and necessary differences exist between the sexes. [Same-sex marriage] rests on a ‘Mister Potato Head Theory’ of gender difference (same core, just interchangeable body parts). [However,] if real differences exist, then men would need women, and women would need men” in order for each person to find his or her “other half” and thereby be completed.5 For marriage traditionalists, same-sex marriage is a “bust.” A second voice is that of marriage advocates. The United Church of Christ in 2005 became the first mainline Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage by affirming “equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender.” Marriage exclusion, this liberal denomination has noted, is a form of discrimination that violates the principle of equal protection under the law. However, this church...

Share