Analysis of In Defense of Traditional Marriage by R. Anderson - Article Example

In Defense of Traditional Marriage Affiliation: Introduction The debate about traditional and same sex marriages has been on the minds and the mouth of people for a few years now. The gay activists have managed to secure rights to get married in most of the states in the US and even in several nations across the world but that has not been enough for them. They want the definition of marriage as specified in the constitution and other documents to be changed from indicating a marriage as a reunion between a man and a woman as this is not the case recently. The important thing in marriage is the aspect of being a family and this means having an institution that is honored and respected despite the sexual orientation of the marriage partners. Argument Anderson in his article about traditional marriages argues that a marriage should still be viewed in the traditional sense of it being a reunion between a man and woman for the purpose of procreation as is indicated in the constitution (Anderson, 2013). His argument therefore dispels the gay activists’ attempts to have this wording changed in the formal documents simply because they have already been accorded the right to get married. The article further ascertains that this definition of marriage has been in existence way before there was any evidence of same sex marriages and hence cannot be changed now. Furthermore, the moment the federal government will change this definition; it will mean that it will be on the road to changing other things as well and being cornered to allow enforcement of other untraditional issues in the marriage institution such as allowing polygamy and the likes. Anderson stands with his word that simply because the gays were allowed to get married in the states that they have does not allow them the power to demand a change of the traditional institutional definition of marriage (Anderson, 2013). They should be glad with what they have been accorded and remain silent on the issue and let traditions remain as they have always been. The argument by Anderson leans more towards deductive reasoning where he starts by stating the general rules and laws of marriages that have always been and moves to focusing on the sole aspect of procreation. This argument is based on only one major point and a few others that are not too strong to support the traditional marriages or even provide enough reason to avoid the definition of marriage being changed in the constitution despite it being an age old definition whose changes will open up a Pandora’s box of other issues related to modern marriages. The argument of maintaining tradition is valid but is still a bit weak as will be seen in the counterargument (Anderson, 2013). Counterargument Traditional marriages between a man and a woman have been defined as being for the purpose of procreation. It is obvious that this is not always the case. According to research by Elshtain, (2006), there are couples of a man and a woman that have been married for years and others for decades and have not procreated and they are still being regarded as married. Their union is respected and valued even much more than that of same sex married couple that have children. The issue of getting children should not be the basis of a marriage definition as even without the ability to get children as there are couples that fail to get children due to barrenness, there are others that simply choose not to have any children and they simply keep pets for company. The arguments by Anderson, (2013) therefore about the procreation hold no basis at all to define marriages by. Polikoff (2008) starts his book on the disadvantages that families and marriage that is non-traditional have faced and continue facing simply because they are not regarded by the constitution as marriages. The disadvantages of these are trickling down to their children who are suffering for something they neither asked for nor be able to change. An example is provided of a same sex married couple whose benefits of one partner after death are denied to the other simply because even though they were married, the marriage definition is not similar to what is in the constitution and hence it is simply not recognized legally as marriage as the federal laws supersede the state laws in this case. The ones who end up suffering in this case are the dependents of such an individual meaning the partner and the children that have been sired by them or adopted. In this case therefore, when Anderson is arguing much about not changing the definition of marriage to accommodate the modernity, all he is doing is making families of these same sex married couples suffer in the long run. Since the importance of a marriage is children, their affairs should be the deciding factor in the definition of a marriage (Elshtain, 2006). The same situation is found in the other non- traditional families whose fate is similar to that of same sex married couples. This is especially so for the single parents. It is even worse when the single parent gets married to a same sex partner as the law fails to not only recognize the couple as married when it comes to sharing of resources and wealth but also in the guardianship of the child. The child will still be solely considered to belong to the single parent despite the marriage. This is not the case when a man and woman get married with one partner already having a child as in this case, the child similarly to the property will belong to the other parent as well step parent or not (Polikoff, 2008). It is not disagreed that changing the definition of marriage to incorporate the same sex married couples might open up room for other forms of reunions seeking recognition as well but that there is no guarantee that they will. Meanwhile, refusing to accord these couples similar recognition while they have already been allowed by their religion and state laws to get married does not make the least bit of sense (Lynch, 2013). In the meantime, the homosexual couples even though married and have children still face rejection by sections of the public, religious organizations and even the government itself. What this means is that their children will also continue to be subjected to the same rejection and ridicule simply because the law seems to be divided on their predicament. As mentioned in the counterarguments above, the fight about the modern marriage and traditional marriage should have ended the moment over 40 states legalized the same sex marriage as the issue from then onwards started involving other parties other than the married couples alone (Elshtain, 2006). Despite the liberalization in the gay movement in the US, supporters of the gay people whether they are local or political leaders or even just regular people are continually faced with threats and abuse for that. Innocent souls are being humiliated in public for standing for their rights which the law has accorded to them. This According to Lynch, (2013), is a similar situation that the African Americans faced and continue to face decades after gaining emancipation as they are still facing mild forms of racism and being regarded as the less fair of the two main races in the nation. The emancipation of the gay people came with being recognized and accorded the rights to even get married like the traditional couple but they are still not regarded as equal to them and hence the reason there is such a debate about changing the definition of marriage in the constitution. The emancipation has been accorded but is yet to really be accorded by all and especially the government and a few religious leaders that hold the state to decision making in the federal government as well. Conclusion In conclusion, what is most important in this case in as far as marriage is concerned is to look at the bigger picture which is the family which both heterosexual and homosexual couples have. By following and agreeing with Anderson’s arguments, it is the children of these families that will end up being the losers in this case. The Federal government has a right to protect the families from this drama of marriages all for the sake of maintaining traditions. Other nations have become flexible on the issue and this nation should consider following suit as well. References Anderson, R. (2013, March 20). In Defense of Marriage. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/3/in-defense-of-traditional-marriage Elshtain, J. (2006). The Meaning of Marriage. New York: Scepter Publishers. Lynch, T. (2013). Gay Marriage: An Equality Too Far. New Jersey: Terry R. Lynch Polikoff, N. (2008). Beyond Straight and Gay Marriage: Valuing All Families under the Law. New York: Beacon Press. Read More