I was disappointed, yet not surprised, that the opinions board of The Plainsman voiced their support of Judge Granade's recent attempt to redefine marriage. The view of the staff reflected the popular sentiment that the movement to legalize gay marriage is grounded in equality, but, after just a bit of thought, one can clearly see that same-sex "marriages" and marriages between one man and one woman are intrinsically, by the very essence of what they are, unequal.
The disagreement on this issue is not over whether or not all marriages should be treated equally, but rather over what sort(s) of relationship(s) constitute(s) a marriage. Only by answering this first, most basic question can we judge whether or not a policy is treating marriages equally. Even the proponents of same-sex marriage draw lines when they define marriage, with unions between more than two people as one example of an emotional union they exclude from their definition of marriage, thus making it imperative that we actually answer the question of what marriage is.
Marriage is more than just companionship, and never in the history of humanity, save the past few decades, has marriage been reduced to such a vacuous definition. Clearly, marriage must be based on something more than just love or intense emotion. After all, intense feelings for one another is not an experience limited just to couples, and if marriage was simply based on consenting adult romance then the state would no interest in recognizing "marriage" at all.
The reality is that governments or judges have no power to define what a marriage is, but have a responsibility to enact policy that reflects the basic truth of marriage as a monogamous, exclusive, and permanent union between a man and a woman, or judging if a specific policy violates or upholds marriage equality. In any case, the basic question of what marriage is must be answered. Bringing a man and woman together, permanently and exclusively, for the purpose of creating and nurturing children, is a clear governmental interest. This is marriage. Same-sex unions do not have an equal public purpose. It's not a question of equality, because the unions are intrinsically unequal. Marriage involves more than just contract law for consenting adult romance. Our state, and society in general, has a clear interest in preserving traditional marriage, and unelected and unaccountable judges should stop undermining this societally necessary institution.
Joe Puchner, University of Alabama student
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
