From an interesting piece by Jeff Goode about marriage:
[W]hich traditional definition of marriage do we want our Constitution to protect?
- The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple wives and concubines?
- Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
- Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
- Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of age 11 and up?
- Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for whites to wed blacks or hispanics?
- Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we’re trying to preserve traditional marriage the way it “was and always has been” during a very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s.
I can remember when blacks and white couldn’t marry each other. I remember when Catholics got excommunicated for marrying outside their own faith. I barely don’t remember when female divorcees rarely got married again because no one wanted them. (Widows were different for some reason.)
What the real problem with gay marriage is that people fear change–any change–that might challenge what they hold as truths.
The cure for that? Education.
Unfortunately, our judicial branch has been placed in the position of having to force that education on those who don’t want it. It was exactly the same thing when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down existing miscegenation laws when the Loving v. Virginia decision was handed down in 1967.