Taking a path of moral elasticity
I strongly disagree with the position on gay marriage taken by the Daily Herald. It is ironic this position was published the week we celebrate our independence and expressed that legalizing gay marriage is one more step toward fulfilling the promises made in the Declaration of Independence.
The editors reference the struggle to end the brutal and dehumanizing institution of slavery and the efforts of women and African Americans to gain full citizenship in such a way as to put the legalization of gay marriage on the same level as those struggles. Doing so demeans and trivializes those struggles. The editors make the case that without the legalization of gay marriage, certain individuals in our society will not have full citizenship. Are those who choose not to marry less than full citizens? When did marriage become a criteria for citizenship?
Marriage is an institution which has been defined in the Judeo-Christian tradition among others as existing between a man and a woman. To say that one particular groups' "pursuit of happiness" must allow for that definition to be altered continues to take us down roads of moral elasticity which have grave consequences for our society.
John Adams, an author of that Declaration of Independence you use to justify your position, said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It was that faith and those moral foundations which gave him and the other Founding Fathers strength found within the Judeo-Christian tradition.
And it is within this tradition that marriage is defined as existing between a man and a woman. As we "chip away" and alter these moral and religious foundations, we "chip away" at the very foundation of the Constitution itself. I am sure John Adams would agree.
Tom Paulsen
Wheaton
