A Fine Argument for Gay Marriage, but a Flawed Legal Opinion
The judge’s argument about the benefits of marriage is nonsense when applied to same sex marriage. In effect, he tries to pull a slight of hand trick to confuse the issue.
Marriage has traditionally been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Traditional marriage is beneficial to the individuals and to society at large. In fact, traditional marriage is the building block of a strong and cohesive society.
What the judge has done is to take the term marriage, strip the traditional meaning from it, and then say if we apply the mere term “marriage” – without the traditional meaning – then the term itself will bring benefit to society and to gays. The term “marriage” itself is not magical. Marriage has no meaning outside of its traditional meaning. The benefits of “marriage” do not spring form the term but from the traditional concept of marriage.
Marriage only brings stability and happiness if it is treated as a sacred institution. A society with a 50% or more divorce rate does not treat marriage as sacred or even serious. Thus a society with a 50% or more divorce rate will not experience stability or any of the benefits of a traditional marriage. It is not a coincidence that as divorce rates have went up societal cohesion and stability have went down. The acceptance of same sex marriage will not benefit society. It will only further weaken traditional marriage. You cannot call a cactus an apple tree and expect to get apples from it just because you changed the name.
