Some affirm "gay marriage" as a very good and sensible thing

[11-26-03]

In the wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, there have been cries of alarm from those who feel that the whole institution of marriage is threatened. And so some kind of "defense of marriage" act or amendment is called for to rescue us all.

But there are other views.

David Brooks, writing an op-ed piece in The New York Times, argues that marriage is already in crisis - with almost half ending in divorce; many people living together without marriage, and all the rest. Even so, marriage, with its deep commitments, long-term joining of two lives and the learning and growth that go with that, is a vital part of life for many of us. And as a conservative he argues that if we expect that of heterosexual couples, we should make the same demands of gay and lesbian couples.

So, he says, "The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity."

David Brooks writes a column for The New York Times, is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, a contributing editor at Newsweek and the Atlantic Monthly, and a commentator on "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer." For nine years before joining The Weekly Standard he worked at that notoriously liberal rag, The Wall Street Journal.

Andrew Korfhage, a Washington, DC, writer, examines the broader implications of the Massachusetts decision and how it reflects broader trends in other states and around the nation. Even many who resist the idea of "gay marriage" are increasingly supportive of equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples. (Though, as David Brooks says, that may be a pretty minimal approach.) Standing against this is the President, who greeted the decision with "a stinging rebuke, promising personal action against the ruling. 'Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman,' he said. 'Today's decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.' "

A little question from your WebWeaver: Does our Reformed tradition really view marriage as a "sacred institution"? Brooks' approach is interesting precisely because it doesn't use that kind of quasi-religion rhetoric, but focuses on the very real human benefits of marriage for the individuals involved, as well as (by implication) the society as a whole.