Marriage isn't about kids.

So, a Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio wrote an opinion piece at nydailynews.com. He's not happy about the passage of same-sex marriage rights in New York. His argument is summed up with this:

It is destructive because we fail to view marriage in the context of a vocation: a calling to participate in the great enterprise of forming the next generation.


Marriage is reduced to an empty honor.

Actually, no. Marriage is not just for "forming the next generation." If a man and woman get married who are incapable of having children, their marriage is NOT an empty honor. It will still (ideally) be a relationship built on love, trust, and respect. It will still be a visible commitment to the world of that relationship. It will be an opportunity to deepen their love, trust and respect for each other. It will be many things, but it will not be empty. Children are not the be-all and end-all of marriage, they aren't even the most important part of it. Marriage is not a job, it is not a calling, it's a relationship.

If marriage is just a job for creating kids, then who cares if you commit adultery? Just make sure you don't have kids doing it. If marriage is just a job for creating kids, then why not arrange marriages with an eye toward breeding kids with the traits we want? You know, like horse breeding. Indeed, if marriage is just a job for creating kids, let's start having interviews, and deny you marriage if you don't pass. You can put forth your qualifications in a resume: "good at child discipline, and believe in strict bedtimes." Don't forget periodic reviews! "Your child disobeyed an average of 2 times per week last quarter. What do you plan on doing to correct this trend?"

Marriage is a relationship. Whether it is good or bad has nothing to do with the gender of those involved. So how about we start showing a little fairness?

Christian nation?

You've probably heard it before. "This nation was founded as a Christian nation." "We need to return to our Christian roots." "All the Founding Fathers were Christian." Now, while this is rather unlikely to be true, I'm willing to temporarily grant the point for the sake of argument. I'm willing to do this for one simple reason: I don't think it matters.

Oh sure, it matters from the position of having an accurate history. I would never advocate ignoring or covering up any part of history. When I say it doesn't matter, I mean that it doesn't matter in terms of how we determine our public policy and legislative goals. Even granting (for argument's sake) that the Founders were Christian and wanted a Christian nation, that is in no way binding on us in the here and now.

When people say things like "This nation was founded as a Christian nation," they're essentially making the mistake of thinking that just because an idea is old, it should be given more weight. False. The age of an idea is no indicator of it's value. An idea must stand on it's own, regardless of it's age or who says it. Slavery is a very old idea, thousands of years old, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Likewise, mere age doesn't make the "Christian roots" argument a good one.

When considering our policies of today, the laws we wish to adopt, the freedoms we wish to grant, we should only consider whether they are good ones. Do they improve our country in some way, whether by increasing justice, freedom, or some other good? Do they protect us, without infringing on us? There's a distinct possibility that trying to answer these questions by solely referencing our Founding Fathers's views on an issue would not lead us to improvement, but may even cause us to slide backward. Remember, women didn't get to vote under the system set up by the Founders.

Just as a son is not obligated to follow in his father's footsteps, we as Americans are not obligated to follow in the footsteps of America's fathers. They were kind enough and wise enough to include within the Constitution a means of altering what they had written, in the form of making Amendments, should their descendants determine that an alteration is necessary. We should be wise enough to recognize the general principle embodied in that rule, and stop acting as if the Founding views are the views that matter most, whether those views were Christian, secular, Jewish, Humanist, or those of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Comments? Thoughts? Ideas? Start the discussion below.

Tradition

Perhaps you have heard of or seen a film called "The Fiddler on the Roof?" I can't remember the last time I actually sat and watched the whole thing, as it is at times slower than the films I like to watch, and quite long. Plus, no dragons, lasers, robots, or superheroes. Anyway. It's a musical (and I do love musicals) with some rather delightful songs, and one who's title line has always stuck in my head is "Tradition!" It's the opening number of the film, split between Tevye (the milkman) speaking to the audience and explaining the importance of tradition to the people of his village, Anetevke, and the chorus of villagers explaining traditional roles. Their lives are shaky, uncertain (the film takes place in Russia during a time of great Jewish persecution), like the balance of a fiddler playing on a roof, and tradition helps them maintain balance in their lives. Everyone has a place, and knows just who they are and what's expected of them, thanks to tradition. They even have traditional feuds, like the time when *he* sold a horse to _him_ that was *he* told _him_ was 12 years old, when it was only 6.

It's powerful, this sense of tradition. And it remains powerful even in 21st century America. We have traditional holidays, traditional dress for men and women, traditional gatherings, traditional foods, and traditional feuds. When those traditions are broken or unable to be followed, it can be distressing. The first time I couldn't go to my parents home for Thanksgiving was a sad time, and when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, many, I suspect, were distressed at the idea that Mardi Gras might not be able to go forward. Thankfully, it did. I'm sure you yourself could think of many traditions that you would not wish to miss out on.

Yet, it is in large part because of tradition's power that we need to always be willing to examine our traditions, and to determine if those traditions we hold dear (or not so dear) are still worth keeping. To go back to the "Fiddler on the Roof," it was traditional for the Jews of Anetevke to have fathers choose who their children would marry, often when they were still quite young, yet as the movie progresses 3 of Tevye's daughters all seek to marry a man of their own choosing, each one seemingly worse than the last from a traditional perspective. Is that a tradition that should be maintained?

When considering a tradition, there are always going to be multiple things to consider: is it fun? is it beneficial? is it used to memorialize some event that should not be forgotten? is it necessary? in what way is it necessary? is there a better way? And most important, is it ethical? Choosing who your children will marry may have had benefits, such as ensuring that your children will in fact get married, and thus have social stability protected, the family line will continue, there may be financial considerations, political benefits (ending some of those traditional feuds), etc. But at the same time, it denies those individual children, who will some day be adults, the freedom of choice to choose who they will spend a lifetime with, having sex (effectively legitimizing rape of both the man and woman), raising children, interacting with day in, and day out. If the man does not like the wife who was chosen for him? Too bad. It's tradition. Can there be any doubt that when these things are taken into account, this tradition can only be called unethical? If the tradition is unethical, should it not be eliminated? Of course.

Not all traditions are good traditions. Some are downright harmful (female genital mutilation, for example), some are just boring as hell (sitting through multiple commencement speakers at graduation -- ok, that one might have a redeeming feature or two), some might have had a purpose at some point in time, but no longer have a purpose (I don't have any examples for that one, can anyone else think of one?). It's not always immediately obvious whether a tradition is a good tradition, and as such, all traditions must be open to critical  examination, and never defended solely on the basis of "But it's a tradition." If a tradition is found to be unethical, or harmful, it needs to eliminated, or modified to address those concerns. If it's simply boring, can we spice it up a bit? If it had a purpose once, but that purpose is no longer valid, is it worth keeping as a memorial, or because it's fun, or for any other good reason? If so, by all means hold on to it.

Christmas, for example. On the one hand, I'm an atheist, so clearly, I have no desire to celebrate the birth of Jesus, so you won't see any Nativity scenes in my home, I'm not likely to sing traditional, religiously themed carols, or go to Christmas church services. I worked in retail for a number of years, at the local mall, in a store geared toward children, so I'm quite familiar with the commercialization of Christmas. But, I like the get togethers of family that we traditionally engage in. There's a beautiful song by Tim Minchin, called "White Wine in the Sun," that captures my feeling exactly. So, original purpose? Gone, and was never really valid. Memorial? Nope. Fun? Oh yea, definitely. If you ever saw a gathering of my in-laws when the white wine's a-flowing (or even when it's not), you'd agree. And while there's no white wine flowing on my side of the family, there's still fun to be had. I have yet to find any ethical concerns with the tradition as we maintain it, but there's a sense of belonging and connection that I quite like. I think I'll keep this one.

"You may ask, how did this tradition get started? I'll tell you...I don't know. But it's a Tradition!" -Tevye, "Fiddler on the Roof"