Mr. Puchner seems to have accidentally proven the exact point he set out to argue against.
To quote, "The reality is, government and judges have no power to define what marriage is" Yep! That's kind of the point there, Joe. Judge Granade's argument hinges on the issue that the state has no power to limit what marriage is. In particular, that two pieces of legislation were unconstitutional in their definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
To be precise, the plaintiffs were not represented equally under the law because the state overstepped their bounds in defining what a marriage is. So you and Judge Granade agree there. But I don't think Mr. Puchner understands that. Further, the "basic truth" that a marriage is a quote, "monogamous, exclusive and permanent union" is not thereafter made false by exchanging "between a man and a woman" for any other pairing, be it man and another man, or what have you.
Again, Mr. Puchner seems to have a pretty good idea of what a marriage should be, but not a clue why it shouldn't be extended to gays. He goes on to say, for the second or third time in the article by this last paragraph, that "it's not a question of equality, because the unions are intrinsically unequal." He never comes close to explaining how those unions are intrinsically unequal.
I think he just really enjoys the word intrinsically, but isn't quite sure what it means. I've read his op-ed three times now and I still can't see it. But what do I know? I'm just a political science and philosophy student. We don't ever have to read anything dense and confusing.
Even if you believe a marriage is a purely religious construct, in which the government has no grounds to interfere, you must then become comfortable with the fact that some churches will be willing to perform marriages between same-sex couples. If you want to remove the government from it entirely, then under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, no marriages are legal, per se.
To that end, if no marriages are legal, then what are we even arguing about? Same-sex marriage must then be honored or dishonored in the same way that your different-sex marriage is just as legally bunk. If that's what you really want, let the churches decide.
With the scores of churches across the nation (and already in our state) saying they will bless same-sex unions, I think you might not like the results, Mr. Puchner. In conclusion, it seems, indeed, that Mr. Puchner absolutely wants the government to define what marriage is.
As long as it's what he thinks it is. The thought that the government has no place in defining marriage is only convenient insofar that it doesn't grant freedom to those who don't subscribe to Mr. Puchner's personal definitions (admittedly shared by numbered hordes of ignorant Alabamians). Make up your mind, Mr. Puchner.
Evan Smith is a senior in philosophy and political science at the University of Alabama in Birmingham.
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.
