A Letter on DOMA

The Los Angeles Times printed a couple of letters in response to their anti-DOMA editorial. I wanted to look at the one from Lynne Shapiro of Marina del Rey:

In the 1970s and '80s, when homosexuals were looking for love in all the wrong places, they were vilified. Now, when they marry a permanent partner and have a family, they are denied the rights the rest of us enjoy while paying higher taxes because they can't file joint returns.

I agree that if the choice is between having a homosexual person engaging in homosexual behavior with a seemingly endless line of casual partners or having two homosexual people stay with each other in lifelong stability, the latter is better. However, nothing is preventing same-sex couples from doing so already. Neutering marriage devalues marriage, children, men, women, fathers, mothers, masculinity, and femininity. That is too high of a price to pay. Also, there is no legal requirement of sexual fidelity attached to marriage, though a few states do still allow for suing for alienation of affection.

Still, for most, marriage brings certain social expectations, including fidelity. Celebrities who sleep around do so with no general disapproval, unless they are married. "Committed" in the homosexual subculture, especially male, has carried a different meaning. One could argue that there are positives and negatives associated with the typical marriage, and positives and negatives associated with the typical same-sex committed pairing. One of the risks of neutering marriage is that the negatives of same-sex pairings will influence marriage in general. And quite possibly, same-sex couples may find the negatives of marriage imposed on their own unions.

Joint tax returns and other government benefits assigned to marriage were assigned to marriage precisely because it has been the only kind of association that unites both sexes into a social, legal, and financial unit, and most of those units naturally create new citizens. It is the only kind of association that can, and will inherently provide them with a legally-obligated role model from each of the two sexes who are also bound to each other. That never happens in associations absent a bride or absent a groom, which can only raise children through the involvement of at least one third party.

Courts have made a point of dismantling or punishing associations set up so as to exlcude one of the sexes, particularly male-only associations. Now, marriage neutering advocates are demanding the courts and general government actually sanction and support such associations.

I agree with The Times and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that it is time to end the inequities and call on all loving parents of gay and lesbian children to support the Respect for Marriage Act and replace the prejudicial and unjust Defense of Marriage Act.

I wonder if Shapiro is likewise calling on all loving parents of heterosexuals to support DOMA? Shapiro then brings this one out of left field:

The Bible was written a long, long time ago by men.

You mean, like the Constitution?

It should no longer determine our attitudes and legislation toward our homosexual brethren.

One need not heed the Bible, nor hold any disapproval of homosexual behavior, to oppose the neutering of state marriage licensing, especially when that is being forced on on state by another. But it is interesting to find out that Shapiro is apparently a misandist or sexist (or maybe a misanthrope) and that for each day that goes by, we should disregard this letter more and more. After all, by the letter's own statement, how long ago something was written seems to matter regarding whether or not it should be cited about something that hasn't changed since it was written. Thoughout all of the years the Bible was written, up until very recently, marriage always united a bride and a groom. Men and women are still different.