Blogtrek

Gay Marriage and Massachusetts

I heard on the news this week that the banning of marriage between individuals of the same sex in Massachusetts has been declared unconstitutional. People opposed to gay marriage say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe it is. Biologically, it works best with a man and a woman, since they can produce the children to constitute a family, and the purpose of marriage in my opinion, is not companionship; it is not financial, and it is not even sex. The purpose of a marriage is to raise a family. This implies that the partners need not keep sexually exclusive to their spouses, provided the couple agrees to a policy of this kind. That's right, I think a sexually free marriage can work. It would be the ideal marriage for gay people. A gay man can marry a lesbian and agree that their sex life would be separate from their marriage except for a few times necessary to create the family. A lesbian marriage would have to have sex with others (or use expensive in vitro fertilization) to create a family, and there is always the possibility that their male partners would want at least partial custody of the children. A gay male couple can't even create a child on their own but have to seek adoption.

However, the court is right in saying that banning gay marriage denies the benefits of marriage to a gay person solely because of his or her sexual preference. Some sort of union needs to be recognized such that the couple does have the benefits of marriage. Further, I would not like an amendment added to the Constitution stating that a marriage is between a man and a woman. To me that is the government entering into something that should be personal among the partners in a relationship.