Stephanie C. Warriner
This is in response to Sen. Bill Sharer’s recent column, “Nature already decided who qualifies for marriage.”
To assume that “natural” marriage is based solely on what will benefit society, on the basis of a couples’ ability to procreate and care for children by encouraging “the traditional family,” indicates that you are clearly misguided.
First, according to the 2010 Annual Report of the New Mexico Judiciary there were, at years’ end, 11,504 open cases regarding domestic relations issues as they pertain to child involvement only (i.e. child support, custody and visitation, dissolution of marriage with custody). The report states that family court services pertaining to child access and visitation has seen a “substantial increase” in priority consultations from its 2009 report by a staggering 30 percent, which was already significantly higher than in 2008.
Furthermore, these increases come with considerable decreases in clinician hours; priority consultation and mediation caseloads continue to increase while the court’s resources continue to decrease. These statistics all apply to “the traditional family,” those heterosexual individuals who married in the “natural” way. After reviewing these numbers and observing our overburdened and underfunded court system, I fail to see how the “natural” marriage of the 11,504 open cases in our judiciary are benefiting our society.
Not procreation of child-rearing
Moreover, the assumption that gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry due to their biological inability to procreate with each other leads to the conclusion that marriage laws already need a radical change.
I find it rather interesting that you would suggest that “commitment and love are not sufficient reasons to alter the definition of marriage.” For instance, if I were to take your premise seriously, infertile heterosexual couples – couples “nature already decided” can’t have children – should not be allowed to marry either. I highly doubt anyone would agree to that.
Yet, when I contemplate the response our society would have on the motives of people marrying, such as love, money, social status, even citizenship, it clearly denotes that love is a basis for marriage, not procreation or child-rearing.
Furthermore, if “the only reason the state has any business in marriage is because of children,” we would then have to mandate that marriage exists solely for procreation or child-rearing. We certainly can’t allow married couples to willingly remain childless, can we? So, as clear opponent to same-sex marriage do you not take the above principles seriously? Outrageous, right?
And if the state has such an interest in maintaining marriage for the children, what does that mean for the hundreds of children born in the State of New Mexico to unwed parents? Do those children deserve less from the state, or does that state have an obligation to force those parents to marry?
Agreeing on one thing
According to John Locke, a known advocate of natural rights and the Lockean theories that were invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence, what they sought was happiness.
So, if “marriage is natural law” and natural law is based on happiness, then the basis of marriage is happiness, regardless of age, ability to procreate or sexual orientation. I do agree with you on one thing: Marriage is far more than a legal contract endorsed by the state.
Warriner is a Democrat and life-long resident of New Mexico, and presently resides in Albuquerque with her fiancé. She is a 2008 graduate of New Mexico State University with a bachelor’s in government and philosophy. Currently, she is an EMBA student in the Anderson School of Management at the University of New Mexico. In a nutshell, she is an Irish-Mexican, so naturally she enjoys loud music, a pint of chilled Guinness and huge family gatherings.