Friday, February 24, 2012
Gingrich says its OK if the people of a state vote for gay marriage; Santorum talks about "dilution of marriage"
The Washington Times has reprinted an AP story by Brian Bakst, “Gingrich: Washington same-sex law the right way”, link here. Gingrinch says he would accept what a legislature decides if the voters at least have a chance at referendum, even if he would personally vote no. Gingrich thinks this should be left to states (but DOMA really did that).
But Santorum claims that there should be a federal definition of marriage for all purposes. (Does this mean he opposes civil unions? It sounds like it, if he opposes Lawrence v. Texas.) He says that allowing gay relationships legal recognition dilutes the “meaning” of marriage to the point that many people will either not form marriages in the first place, or be able to keep the ones they have. (That would be like Sami’s blaming Will for her infidelity on “Days of our Lives”.) I could put this in very crude terms (use imagination). This sounds something like this: “I will enter into and keep a relationship that involves giving something up of myself if I know that everyone else will or has to, or will not be allowed to compete with me without doing so.” It also sounds like “If I make the sacrifices to raise a family, my kids have to make the same sacrifices to carry the “lineage” of my marital relationship forward into eternity.” (Until the Sun, or Melancholia, swallows up the Earth.) Yet, in older tribal societies, or in societies that feel threatened as to survival, such arguments carry weight.
Santorum's language on the collective nature of marriage sounds like the concept of "trademark dilution".
The link is here.