Twisting the meaning of marriage

Tokyo

The predictably liberal Los Angeles Times editorial “The Faces of Marriage in America” (reprinted in The Japan Times on Feb. 22) trots out the same flawed analogy of same-sex marriage to interracial marriage, which seems to be the centerpiece of the campaign to twist the definition of marriage to mean something it has never been and can never be.

The slew of “anti-miscegenation” statutes that were invalidated in Loving v. Virginia (1967) never were based on a fundamental theory of marriage, and couldn’t be, since examples abounded from ancient times to Pocahontas of interracial marriage being accepted. The mere biological fact that a healthy male and female of any race can beget children puts the lie to any “natural” justification. These invidious laws were based on 19th-century theories of white racial supremacy that were rightly laid to rest.

In contrast, laws against same-sex marriage do not have “supremacist” grounding; they reflect a desire to protect the link between marriage and biological parenting, between the role of marriage in the collective self-consciousness and our human nature as male and female. Equally specious is the old canard about how the tide is moving only in the direction of gay marriage.

Tell that to the citizens of North Carolina and Minnesota, who have constitutional amendments on their ballot this year to ban same-sex marriage, or to the 75 percent of African-American Californians who voted for Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage).

Intimidation by the liberal media may make some people reticent about telling a pollster that they oppose same-sex marriage. It’s funny, though, that whenever the issue has been put to a referendum in the United States, people have upheld the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.

thomas clark