Gay marriage as a domino

It will not end with legalizing polygamy either. Anyone who is

reading the news knows that other issues like pedophilia (sex with

children), incest and others are also being challenged. Open the door

and where will it stop? It won’t.

I have moral objections to all of these issues in a society that

is increasingly coming to the conclusion that the only absolute is

that there are no absolutes. From a business or government

perspective, imagine the costs and paperwork headaches in the HR

departments to add and subtract and change the status of multiple

partners.

Anything that becomes universal loses its identity. Marriage is

losing its identity and is coming to mean nothing in our culture.

P.S. To those who say marriage/sex is about reproduction, stop --

that’s bad theology and a terrible argument. God created sex for

enjoyment too -- within a heterosexual marriage.

ASSOCIATE PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity Church

Costa Mesa

Having come of age in the 1960s, I recall how the domino theory

dominated strategic thinking: the idea that if the Communist regime

of North Vietnam succeeded in overthrowing the dictatorship of South

Vietnam, the North Vietnamese would proceed to foment Communist

revolution throughout Indochina and conquer the region.

In retrospect, Robert McNamara, one of the chief architects of

that policy, explained that the domino theory had no factual

foundation. The reality was that no North Vietnamese leader ever

expressed the least interest in such a scheme. North Vietnamese

leaders were amazed to learn that Americans actually believed

anything so preposterous.

I am, then, skeptical of domino theories. As the slippery slope of

the war in Vietnam was proven to be fictitious, I view as equally

ludicrous the proposition that legitimizing homosexual unions as

“marriages” could have a domino effect leading to acceptance of

polygamy. The issue of same-sex unions being defined as marriage

ought to be considered on its own merits, and not compromised by

hysteria over what societal value might fall next. While I believe

there are good reasons to affirm marriage solely as a heterosexual

relationship, I do not see homosexual “marriages” as undermining the

value of monogamy and leading to polygamy.

I cannot imagine how one can clearly demonstrate how monogamous

“marriage” between homosexuals could plausibly lead to endorsing

polygamy, or incest, a Manson family wedding or any other Chicken

Little scenarios.

Advocates of recognizing homosexual unions as marriage say they

are seeking a status already enjoyed by others, one sanctioned by the

state. Promoters of polygamy would have to back an institution not

approved by society and would have to support a right that others do

not have. I do not conceive that solemnizing homosexual unions as

“marriage” would lead to endorsing polygamy any more than the

historically widespread practice of polygamy led to same-sex

marriage. How does homosexual “marriage” lead to polygamy any more

than does heterosexual marriage?

When considering a domino theory, bear in mind that were it not

for marriage there would be no adultery, no divorce, no serial

marriage, no abandonment, no spousal abuse or all the other ills that

undermine marriage and plague society. In addition to the Defense of

Marriage Act, we need a Defense of Reason Act!

RABBI MARK MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

If gay marriages become sanctioned, then everything that is

considered sacred would become degraded.

In regards to polygamy, under strict conditions Islam permits the

institute of polygamy. An important note about Islam is that Quranic

injunctions such as prayer, inheritance and fasting remains until

life ceases to exist. Quranic doctrines do not bend to social or

political popularity or pressure. Before the advent of Islam, men

were permitted to have as many wives as they deemed fit and were not

obligated by any set of marital rules.

Of the three monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and

Islam), Islam was the only faith that applied strict conditions on

polygamy and put a limit on the number of wives a man could marry.

When the institute of polygamy is studied in Islam, one easily comes

to the conclusion that it is a form of securing women who had no

other form of protection within society.

IMAM MOUSTAFA AL-QAZWINI

Islamic Educational Center

of Orange County

Costa Mesa

Connections between “gay marriage” and polygamy seem to me

exceedingly slim. God’s spirit seems to be working through religious

and governmental channels to encourage us to seriously explore the

former and to definitely relegate the latter to times and places

past.

However, “gay marriage” finds little support in holy scripture or

Christian tradition and experience while polygamy, literally “many

marriages,” was widespread in the history and lands of our

forbearers. In ancient Israel, this assumed the form of “polygamy,”

marriage of a man with more than one woman, rather than “polyandry,”

marriage of a woman with more than one man. The reasons for polygamy

in biblical times included love and lust, the desire for children and

need for male heirs, and diplomacy between/among nations’ rulers.

What has changed between then and now?

Benefits of marriage currently include having one’s relationship

blessed before God and beloveds, social status and acceptance, and

rights of inheritance and insurance and more for next-of-kin. These

benefits apply to covenantal relationships between two parties in

which all-and-everything is committed: “with all that I am and all

that I have” and “for better for worse” in words from our Book of

Common Prayer. I understand that contractual agreements can be made

among three or more parties, but wonder how covenantal commitments

could apply to more than two. For me, the bottom line is that of the

cartoon character wondering out loud, “Why would anyone want to be

married with more than one spouse?”

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Parish Church

Corona del Mar

The debate over gay marriage has certainly opened a Pandora’s box,

but I don’t think the subject of polygamy is one of the most serious

questions. Some of those against gay marriage claim it will lead to

all kinds of sordid arrangements like people wanting to marry their

pets. Advocates say that the sun will still rise in the East even if

gay couples wed.

I think the more interesting questions are: What is the proper

jurisdiction of government? And, what does it mean to have equal

treatment under the law?

Concerning jurisdiction, would it be better for government to

stick with civil unions for everyone rather than take it upon itself

to define marriage? Perhaps the marriage union should be left up to

others such as church, family and individuals. The institution of

marriage certainly carries with it a spiritual, if not religious,

aspect. It also confers a certain status within the community that is

not wholly described by law. I believe the government has plenty to

do dealing with such issues as education, poverty and healthcare, let

alone its place in the world community, to concern itself with the

love lives of gay or heterosexual couples.

This leads to the second question: Should some citizens be granted

rights and privileges that others are denied? The maturation of

democracy requires dealing with this kind of question. What does

equality for all citizens, rich or poor, male or female, white or

nonwhite, gay or straight, really mean? Equal education, equal

justice, equal protection, equal opportunity -- these are all areas

that could use serious debate. The subject of polygamy is not one of

those areas.

THE REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa