OPINION & EDITORIAL
Marriage: a cultural tradition
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Amanda Vogelzing:
- Effective means of dealing with stress (December 8, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Gay-marriage ban bad for Wisconsin (December 2, 2005)
- Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
- Bishop errs in advice (October 11, 2006)
- Vote "No" on marriage ban (November 6, 2006)
- Court weighs culture, law (October 31, 2006)
by Amanda Vogelzing
Friday, January 21, 2005
Same-sex marriage has been a very hot topic since the election made it prominent. As a society, we’ve been asked to question our definition of legal marriage. As of right now, despite what anyone thinks it should be, legal marriage is a state-defined contract between a man and a woman.
We all have our own personal definitions of marriage. As someone who is married, I see it as a strong commitment to a lifelong, hopefully loving relationship between a man and a woman. Although I sympathize with gay and lesbian couples’ desire to make a similar commitment to prove their love and loyalty to one another, such a commitment simply does not come under our current institution of marriage.
If a same-sex couple wants only to have a ceremony for sentimental reason, many churches today will perform a ceremonial marriage for these purposes. However, it is inconsiderate of them to try and change the definition of legal marriage. The argument about our country’s definition of marriage is not about giving rights to couples in love, it is about preservation of a cultural tradition that holds a lot of meaning for many people in our country. Changing this definition would affect every person in our country. Therefore, each person’s opinion deserves equal weight in the decision.
All of us who grew up in the United States have grown up with the knowledge of what marriage means in our country. Our country works so hard to uphold the cultural traditions of everyone. Just because one group of people in our country no longer value a tradition in its current state does not mean they should disregard the value it holds for others and attempt to change the tradition to fit their new ideas.
It is obvious from statistics around the country that a large portion of Americans feel strongly about the current definition of marriage and oppose changing it. We should respect this. If same-sex couples desire to make a commitment, they should work on creating a new legal institution that carries with it similar benefits and responsibilities but is intended to apply to the legal union of same-sex couples from the beginning. Not only could we create an institution with fewer problems and loopholes that secure the rights of same-sex couples, but such an institution would not impose upon the many people who feel so strongly about the current definition of marriage in our country. The current institution of marriage was never meant to include same-sex couples and would require significant changes to include such unions. With so many people personally connected to the current marriage institution, it is really not worth offending them, nor is it really necessary. A new institution of legal same-sex unions, with the rights and responsibilities that same-sex couples cannot easily obtain today, would be an institution for them to be proud of.
Although you may disagree that changing the current legal definition of marriage should bother anybody, many people in our country have strong feelings against including same-sex unions under the definition of marriage. These feelings are not going to change. Because these feelings come from other fellow U.S. citizens, we need to realize that they are just as valid. Everyone in this country has opinions that matter, even if we disagree with them. To solve this disagreement successfully, we need to respect the feelings of people on both sides.
Amanda Vogelzang (askuck@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in classical humanities.
Anonymous (January 20, 2005 @ 11:12pm):
"However, it is inconsiderate of them to try and change the definition of legal marriage. The argument about our country's definition of marriage is not about giving rights to couples in love, it is about preservation of a cultural tradition that holds a lot of meaning for many people in our country. Changing this definition would affect every person in our country. Therefore, each person's opinion deserves equal weight in the decision."
That's interesting. 30 years ago, that's the exact same argument that was made against striking down laws banning interracial marriage. People said interracial marriage was unnatural, that it violated traditional taboos, and that it had negative effects on all members of society.
Today we know that those arguments were a bunch of bull. Interracial marriage is no more unnatural than intraracial marriage. It might violate traditional taboos, but if tradition is your guide, maybe we should reinstitute such Biblical traditions as slavery, or the death penalty for Sabbath violators. And since interpersonal relationships are nobody's business but the people involved, interracial marriages never have a negative impact on the rest of society. In fact, the only people who complain about them are racists and bigots.
Amanda closes her article by saying, "To solve this disagreement successfully, we need to respect the feelings of people on both sides." But she clearly has no respect for the feelings of the people affected by the policy she embraces. Just as she is not affected by interracial marriage, she would not be affected by same-sex marriage. Just as a policy banning interracial marriage helps no one and hurts people in interracial relationships, a policy banning same-sex marriage helps no one and hurts people in same-sex relationships. And just as the government has no business denying equal rights to interracial couples, the government also has no right to deny equal rights to same-sex couples.
Amanda would have you believe that because the majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, it is right to ban such marriages. Unfortunately for her argument, here in American we still protect minorities from this attitude, which is sometimes called "the tyrrany of the majority." Suppose 60% of Americans believed that all Americans should be forced to observe Christian holidays. Should the atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of other religions accept that decision, or should they invoke the First Amendment to defend themselves? (Hint: if you think they should give in or leave the country, you would have fit right in in Nazi Germany.)
It's easy to say you respect the feelings of the other side of an argument when the majority supports you. It's harder to demonstrate that you mean what you say. In that respect, Amanda, you failed miserably.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 8:52am):
Don't worry Amanda, in 40 years the cultural tides will have shifted. You'll be the crotchety old grandma who can let go of the way things were when you were 21. Nothing like paying lip service to those with whom you disagree with.
If all that mattered in this country is what the majority thought should be right, then Al Gore would have been running for reelection last year. Why bother having courts when we could do as Amanda suggests and go with the crowd?
"Changing this definition would affect every person in our country. Therefore, each person's opinion deserves equal weight in the decision."
So i am to assume that when a majority of Americans are for same-sex marriage that it should be the law of the land?
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 9:46am):
Well Amanda, here are a few other things that ought to be done, according to your (il)logical thinking:
1. No one in the United States may practice any religion but Christianity, for most Americans were "traditionally Christian."
2. No woman may work or do anything outside of the home, as this was "traditionally a woman's role."
3. No one other than those of European descent may have full, represented rights in this country, as they were once "traditionally in power."
These are just three of the big ones, Amanda. Notice that we've worked on changing people's attitudes towards these ideas, so why shouldn't we work on changing people's attitudes towards homosexuality? Is it because YOU or OTHERS are upset by it? I still fail to see any argument whatsoever that can logically explain why we shouldn't recognize same-sex marriage. The only thing preventing such is the constant whining by people like yourself, who are still only able cite the Bible, their own values or "tradition" as counter-arguments. As you are a college student, you should know that a well crafted argument requires SOUND EVIDENCE. But honestly, what will this really affect, other than your own precious ego and bigoted viewpoints? You talk about people trying to impose their views upon you, but what are you doing in your column? I fail to see the difference, and hope that in your last year at UW-Madison you take a look around you and realize just how big the world is, and how insignificant both you and I are. Maybe then you'll realize that acceptance and understanding create a strong community, not xenophobia and hate. Remember that one day you may be standing on the outside, and you might want people to accept you...
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 11:04am):
Gay marriage has been a hot topic for a while now. I've read plenty of views on the topic and I can see both sides - at least I think I can. I'm not gay, I don't support gay marriage, but I understand that gay people like straight people love who they love. After reading and watching some things more recently regarding gays, I've decided that it just doesn't matter if gay marriage gets passed. It won't change how I feel about it personally. It isn't going to change how anyone feels about it. If it's wrong as so many claim the bible states, then it'll still be considered wrong when they believe judgement day will come. And, if not, well, then who knows. I've always tried to separate separate the 'sin' (my opinion) from the person. I think that is what's most important. That's what we anti-gay/anti-gay marriage people have to remember. Just like one attribute about us doesn't define who we are entirely, neither does that one attribute about gays. What becomes law, accepted, majority rule...whether it's right or wrong isn't up to us. I feel that marriage is a sacred union and that it should be between a man and a woman, but if it ends up that they change that, well, that won't make my marriage any more or less meaningful than it is now.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 11:49am):
God told me to tell you that he's going to smite you for that cotton-poly blouse you're wearing (Deuteronomy 22:11).
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 12:31pm):
Egads! What a Poorly Written, Homophobic, and Unthought out Argument.
If this Piffle were Profferred in the Halls of Cambridge where I Taught...it would be Roundly Rejected.
Let us Be Honest...to Deny the Right of Marriage to Gays is only Homophobia Dressed up as Tradition.
This Article is a Worthless Trifle that will be looked upon by your Future Generations as Defenses of Slavery in my Time are Looked Upon by Yours.
Amanda...Your Views are Dangerous and Unsound in that they Encourage the Idiotic Masses to be Comfortable in their Hate. Clearly, you think that Your God and Your Views are the Right Way.
I learned from the Dangerous Times I lived in that you Cannot Claim to have the One True Way. Otherwise, when your views are O'erthrown you feel as if Your World Collapsed About You. Well, Amanda...your Narrow World is going to Collapse About You...I hope you are Prepared.
Locke, out
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 1:49pm):
How dare those lefty liberals try to force me to accept black men and white women or white men and black women marrying each other! It is just unnatural! People just stay within their own kind. If we let blacks and whites get married to each other, what's next? People getting married to their cousins or animals?
Oh, wait, it isn't 1958 anymore?
Hmmm... For some reason all these arguments about gay marriage made me think it was. They are just so freaking familiar.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 2:19pm):
I assume, based on Amanda's arguemtn, that she'll be calling her legislators and urging them to vote "NO" on the proposed amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution which would ban gay marriage AND anything "substantially similar" to marriage for same-sex couples. Furthermore, if this amendment were to come to a public referendum, I'm sure she'll be urging all her friends to vote "NO," since this amendment would eliminate the possibility of what she deems and promotes "a new institution of legal same-sex unions with the rights and responsibilities that same-sex couples cannot easily obtain today."
By the way, I wonder if Amanda's marriage has changed as a result of gays and lesbians being allowed to marry in the state of Massachusetts.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 2:35pm):
This is absolutely ridiculous. For one thing, there is not a single thoughtful or logical statement made against gay marriage in this article. The entire point rests on the assumption that marriage is a traditional institution, and since "most people" respect it, that means 100% of Americans must respect it. Sorry, that is not the way freedom works. You don't get to be right and have your way just because there are more of you. There were more Nazis than Jews, does that make the holocaust justifiable?
My understanding of the word conservative is that it means a particular leaning toward political and economic policies geared at conserving money and resources, rather than spending them freely. But no human in their right mind, conservative or liberal, can say that societies are completely stable and never change, and that there is on set of values that everyone holds. That is the result of the new extreme Right that has emerged, and if I thought this was really the kind of viewpoint that represented all Republicans I think I might hate America.
The author of this article is not a Republican. She is a lunatic, an utter moron who thinks that not only is her religious belief system the "correct" one, but that it should have precedence over all others. Contrary to what she thinks, not all Americans are Christians, and not all are heterosexual. The constitution does not guarantee freedom to all, but some more than others (a contradiction, obviously... has anybody read Animal Farm???) All men are created equal: this means ALL, not just those in power, or those whom there are more of.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 2:45pm):
I am engaged to be married, and I too respect the social institution of marriage and the positive impact it has on society.
It's really too bad I'm a fucking cocksucker though, isn't it? Because according to you, since there are less cocksuckers in the country than non-cocksuckers, that just means that I need to conform to your beliefs, and that when people like you try to commandeer not only my legal rights and responsibilites, but even my religious upbringing (which yes, believe it or not, was Christian, but apparently not fucked up like yours), well then I'm just supposed to take it up the ass (figuratively speaking, of course).
I'm a fag so I can't be married, and I can't be a Christian either. Thank you so much for telling me all the things I can or cannot be.
So would my marriage really affect you in any way? Do you think you would be getting hate mail if I were married? Hmmm.....
Final note: While being sarcastic and cruel (I'm pissed), I forgot to mention that you made absolutely no logical or thoughtful arguments for or against anything in your entire letter. No specific quantifiers except when you speak of "all of us"(all of us white people, Republicans, stupid bitches, what?), no deduction, no examples... And you obviously do not realize that gay unions were sanctified by the Catholic church for many centuries (consult John Boswell's Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe).
I can't believe they printed your letter. It's only slightly more surprising that you wrote it.
-R
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 3:02pm):
If marriage is so all-powerful and stabilizing and traditionally rooted in the fabric of our society, then why are the anti-gays so utterly afraid of it shattering like glass if a change were to be made to the law? How much faith can these people have in their precious value system if they think it is too inflexible to allow gays to get married without America crumbling or the earth falling into the Abyss?
Unions between loving partners have always existed. Spirituality has always existed. And homosexuality and bisexuality have always existed. These are not going anywhere. Christianity and Christian marriage, along with all of its silly stipulations, have not always existed, and both are constantly changing whether the practitioners are immediately aware of it or not.
Maybe the love between homosexual partners should be considered higher than Christianity. Afterall, it's been around since the beginning of our race. Now that's something I would call a tradition.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 3:57pm):
it's interesting how many things are assumed about an author based on one opinion, mind you an opinion not a fact. How can you know the color of someone's skin, their political affiliations, or their opinions on other subjects by one article? ;)
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 3:57pm):
it's interesting how many things are assumed about an author based on one opinion, mind you an opinion not a fact. How can you know the color of someone's skin, their political affiliations, or their opinions on other subjects by one article? ;)
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 3:58pm):
it's interesting how many things are assumed about an author based on one opinion, mind you an opinion not a fact. How can you know the color of someone's skin, their political affiliations, that they even support christianity or feel strongly about it, or their opinions on other subjects by one article? ;)
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 3:59pm):
it's interesting how many things are assumed about an author based on one opinion, mind you an opinion not a fact. How can you know the color of someone's skin, their political affiliations, that they even support christianity or feel strongly about it, or their opinions on other subjects by one article? ;)
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 4:19pm):
too bad we never actually mean tolerance of all viewpoints
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 4:31pm):
"If marriage is so all-powerful and stabilizing and traditionally rooted in the fabric of our society, then why are the anti-gays so utterly afraid of it shattering like glass if a change were to be made to the law?"
It's simple, really. They're so afraid of it because it violates the sanctity of marriage, at least from a religious standpoint. And we all know the straight people have done such a great job preserving the sanctity of marriage, haven't they? That's why half of all marriages end in divorce and why so many married people have affairs.
The funny part about all of this is that many of the people who most staunchly oppose gay marriage because they claim it violates the sanctity of marriage, have had affairs themselves. Look it up -- Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Helen Chenowith, Henry Hyde...the list goes on and on.
Anonymous (January 21, 2005 @ 5:28pm):
White men and black women getting married? Awesome! I heard black women make better marriage partners than white women anyway, because white women just sit around and whine about the most trivial crap. And then they feel rejected when you finally decide that you've heard enough.
Black women, on the other hand, will tell you exactly what's on their mind. They don't hold anything back..."Get yo lazy ass out da bed an' mow dat lawn! When's th' las' time you took out da mutha-f&@#%in' garbage! An' o'ganize all dat shit in da corner o' da garage! I can't park mah Buick in there no mo'! An' this be da las' time you leave all o' dem damn beer cans layin' around in da livin' room! Bag 'em up an' get 'em recycled! GET YO FAT ASS UP!!"
See? You can't go wrong with a black woman.
Anonymous (January 22, 2005 @ 7:34pm):
This column, for all of its failures, does a nice job of summing up the problem with gay marriage. It makes people "uncomfortable." They just dont like it. Its gross. Yada yada yada.
As for the separate but equal form of marriage, I think I remember hearing that before, and the Supreme Court decided that separate was inherently unequal.
When I can find one single logical argument against gay marriage that is not grounded in "personal feelings" or "love of tradition" I will take a second look. Until then, I say we make lawful what is already happening everywhere---people, living together, raising children, trying to eek out a life, and hoping that when they die their money goes to their spouse, or that if they get sick, their partner can hold their hand in the hospital.
Amanda thinks gay marriage is about gay sex, and I see it as an issue of human decency.
Anonymous (January 22, 2005 @ 8:38pm):
this article has nothing to do with gay sex
Anonymous (January 23, 2005 @ 1:01am):
Funny how the gays say that anyone who believes in real families is "anti-gay." Try pro-family...
Anonymous (January 23, 2005 @ 11:17am):
"Funny how the gays say that anyone who believes in real families is "anti-gay." Try pro-family..."
If you had half a brain, you'd realize that it's not just gay people who disagree with you. Also, it's hard to see how opposing giving legal recognition to gay partners, many of whom are raising families of their own, is "pro-family." It's not pro-family, it is anti-gay, it's a violation of all kinds of laws requiring equal treatment for all, and it's just plain wrong.
Anonymous (January 23, 2005 @ 2:45pm):
Also, marriage is both a legal and religious institution to some people. The state can only mess around with the legal definition. If I want to be religious with it, I can. But the state can never mess with marriage as a religious institution, and allowing gay marriage wouldn't be an 'affront' to the tradition of marriage on religious grounds, just legal ones.
Anonymous (January 23, 2005 @ 7:31pm):
Damn, I sure wish my parents were both gay. Anything's better than the redneck asshole who came home drunk half the time that I got stuck with. And my pill-popping, terminally-depressed mom wasn't much better.
Hey, as long as two adults have their shit together and they're ready to commit, I say let 'em get married! Doesn't the religious right have more important issues to tackle, like pedophile priests or religious fanatics who give religion a bad name by twisting scripture to try to scam people outta their money?! Repent, get a life and let two people who really care about each other get married. God, how I hate Republicans!
Anonymous (January 26, 2005 @ 4:09am):
yeah.....I missed the memo that said gay people didn't have families. Can someone put another copy in my cubicle?
Anonymous (January 28, 2005 @ 2:52am):
It is interesting how many things are assumed about an author based on one opinion, mind you an opinion not a fact. How can you know the color of someone's skin, their political affiliations, or their opinions on other subjects by one article? ;)
I happen to know Amanda. She grew up in a state that is very liberal and with people of all colors. I don't want to reveal too much personal information, but she was raised to see a person, not the color of their skin...so interracial marriage wouldn't be an issue with her.
I think everyone should just take a "chill pill" and relax. Life is too short. If you really want to make a difference, pay attention to politics and vote!
