- News>
- Newspapers
Immigrant`s Diary: Is love enough for marriage?: The Hindustan Times
California, Mar 05: No, it is not. But that has not deterred the westerly winds from San Francisco to sweep across the nation and reach New York. It is now the turn of the New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller to reciprocate and challenge us on the burning issue of the day: Same-sex marriage. Hundreds of gays and lesbians joined him on the steps of City Hall last Sunday to demand of City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg that he issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples in New York as it has
California, Mar 05: No, it is not. But that has not deterred the westerly winds from San Francisco to sweep across the nation and reach New York. It is now the turn of the New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller to reciprocate and challenge us on the burning issue of the day: Same-sex marriage. Hundreds of gays and lesbians joined him on the steps of City Hall last Sunday to demand of City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg that he issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples in New York as it has been done in San Francisco.
Bloomberg on his part has made it known that in his opinion the law prevents him from doing so. With an eye on next year’s Mayoral elections, Miller’s retort to Bloomberg is a simple one: begin issuing the licenses until a court says it is illegal! That brings me to the heart of the dilemma facing us: Is marriage a mere legal construct or is there more to it than we are willing to see? I know what many of you will say to that: Isn't marriage whatever the law says it is? Well, only partly. The point here is to understand that marriage is not a creation of the law even though it may be sanctified by it. To put it in its historical perspective, marriage is a fundamental human institution that in fact predates the law. At its core, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognise and regulate an institution that already exists.
Let me point out here explicitly the implicit strand in my arguments all along: that the sexual orientation of my gay friends and acquaintances is completely irrelevant to our present discussion. What people do in their bedrooms is none of our business until it spills over into public domain. A tolerant and secular society like America, made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe and founded by rebels against the establishment, should encourage people to be non-conformist. Neither religious fatwa nor legislative fiat should dictate what behaviour is to be deemed ‘normal.’ I believe that employment, housing, legal and social discrimination based on sexual orientation is abhorrent and support all laws designed to prevent it.
Having said all that, however, I still draw the line on same-sex marriage. Let's be clear about what we are discussing here - gay marriage, not gay relationships, which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples. The fact remains that the essential function of marriage has always been to provide the necessary cultural framework for straight couples and their children.
Unfortunately, no matter how much we may romanticise marriage, love and companionship are not sufficient conditions that define a marriage relationship. If it were to be so, there would be no reason to deny the label of ‘marriage’ to unions between a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to college roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to any denomination of groups living together. Much though I would like to uphold love, I cannot accept it as a sufficient condition to define marriage.
Bloomberg on his part has made it known that in his opinion the law prevents him from doing so. With an eye on next year’s Mayoral elections, Miller’s retort to Bloomberg is a simple one: begin issuing the licenses until a court says it is illegal! That brings me to the heart of the dilemma facing us: Is marriage a mere legal construct or is there more to it than we are willing to see? I know what many of you will say to that: Isn't marriage whatever the law says it is? Well, only partly. The point here is to understand that marriage is not a creation of the law even though it may be sanctified by it. To put it in its historical perspective, marriage is a fundamental human institution that in fact predates the law. At its core, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognise and regulate an institution that already exists.
Let me point out here explicitly the implicit strand in my arguments all along: that the sexual orientation of my gay friends and acquaintances is completely irrelevant to our present discussion. What people do in their bedrooms is none of our business until it spills over into public domain. A tolerant and secular society like America, made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe and founded by rebels against the establishment, should encourage people to be non-conformist. Neither religious fatwa nor legislative fiat should dictate what behaviour is to be deemed ‘normal.’ I believe that employment, housing, legal and social discrimination based on sexual orientation is abhorrent and support all laws designed to prevent it.
Having said all that, however, I still draw the line on same-sex marriage. Let's be clear about what we are discussing here - gay marriage, not gay relationships, which are already supported by most of the economic and legal benefits given to common-law couples. The fact remains that the essential function of marriage has always been to provide the necessary cultural framework for straight couples and their children.
Unfortunately, no matter how much we may romanticise marriage, love and companionship are not sufficient conditions that define a marriage relationship. If it were to be so, there would be no reason to deny the label of ‘marriage’ to unions between a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to college roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to any denomination of groups living together. Much though I would like to uphold love, I cannot accept it as a sufficient condition to define marriage.