Dictates on Marriage

Washington Post Loudoun Extra
December 11, 2004

Loudoun County attracts all manner of anti-gay ideologues. They participate in local and state government, support misnamed “Marriage Affirmation” legislation and run advocacy groups that fabricate political issues from prejudice and fear.

Many of them profess to have Christian beliefs and are careful to cloak their message in code words to the point that it may become muddled to a casual reader or a reporter.

That may explain why the Rev. Jack Stagman felt compelled to clarify his discriminatory position on marriage equality [“Marriage for Man, Woman,” Letters, Loudoun Extra, Dec. 5].

If Stagman’s “scriptural” marriage model is so natural, stable and moral, why is it necessary to engage in social engineering to make it the norm? Natural systems tend to come to equilibrium on their own. Natural systems don’t require an artificial infrastructure of punitive state and federal laws and constitutional amendments to keep them from collapsing. Marriage is as marriage does.

The Ohio anti-gay activist responsible for the constitutional amendment in that state is a self-professed former “porn addict” on his third marriage, while my partner of 21 years and I are on our first and only marriage.

We agree wholeheartedly with Stagman that marriage shouldn’t be entered into lightly, that it requires a lot of work and sacrifice, and that healthy marriage is worth that struggle. However, if a single public expression of lifelong fidelity and commitment by a same-sex couple is unacceptably threatening to his model, maybe it is the attempt to force this model on Americans who feel it is their right to marry the person of their choice that is unnatural and immoral.

Jonathan and David Weintraub

This entry was posted in Advocacy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.