When the issue of same-sex marriage arose in Augusta, a compromise was offered. Rep. Leslie Fossel, R-Alna, proposed a domestic partner registry that would have offered protections and benefits similar to those obtained in marriage without transforming the age-old institution itself.
The proposal sank without a trace, making inevitable a statewide people's veto referendum on whether we will redefine marriage so that it no longer includes either a husband or, alternately, a wife. And thus no longer also includes either a father or, alternately, a mother, when children are involved.
Some people may wonder how defenders of traditional marriage so quickly and easily gathered not only enough signatures to place it on the ballot, but nearly twice that number.
Some will blame the presence of paid circulators, but there were plenty of unpaid ones, too.
Some will say their neighbors are hostile bigots. Such slurs are a sadly recurring theme of a campaign that is supposedly built on the virtues of tolerance and respect for differences, giving those insults a deeply ironic tone and making them ultimately unconvincing.
It's time to move beyond the slurs and face the cental issue.
It is no accident that Western society (and most others around the globe) have for ages defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Social science confirms that wisdom: Children need both fathers and mothers, and the fact that some couples are either intentionally or unintentionally childless means precisely nothing for the vast majority of couples that include offspring.
The opposite holds for same-sex couples; some have children, but they are the exception, not the rule. Thus, the arguments for same-sex marriage primarily focus on the present: It will make us happy, it will fulfill our aspirations, it will legitimize our relationship.
But a marriage between a man and a woman is a family-building voyage into the future, launching generations to come.
It is no wonder that proponents of same-sex marriage fight so hard to keep their campaigns in the hands of the courts, or failing that, in the control of a few legislators more easily swayed than the entire body of citizens. After all, in no case yet has same-sex marriage come up for a statewide vote and been approved.
Critics will say that shows "rights" should not be submitted to ordinary people for a decision. But marriage is more than a right. It is the most public of our obligations not only to each other, but to our society and our culture. Thus it is hedged about with protections that justify its privileges.
How, proponents ask, can same-sex marriage affect others? Consider that if the veto effort fails, we will no longer require that marriages be composed of husbands and wives and mothers and fathers, but "Spouse 1 and Spouse 2," or "Parent 1 and Parent 2."
And that's not marriage, but something entirely different. People flocked to sign petitions because they know a "yes" vote preserves our society's absolutely essential stability.
For the future.
Reader comments
Click here to view or add comments on this story
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form