‘Yes, it’s unfair,’ but…

‘Yes, it’s unfair,’ but…

Sen. Loretta Weinberg wrote the Nov. 19 op-ed piece entitled “New Jersey’s rocky road to marriage equality.”

The Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act that Sen. Weinberg helped draft makes it clear that no religious leader is called upon to perform such ceremonies if he or she chooses not to. And it appears to come to terms with the concerns of Orthodox communities. Reading further, it becomes also clear that Sen. Weinberg decidedly leans in favor of resolving the issue of “compassion” for the legal difficulties of same-sex couples and how to resolve marriage status from state to state. Although the legislation failed to pass, there is much to consider when determining what is fair for same-sex couples: the issues of property, adoption, health care, etc. But I could not help but puzzle at the continuing lack of curiosity that so many commentators have on the effects on children and the problems that could develop as a result of this social experiment that so many religious communities are willing to gamble on. The gamble is on the children of same-sex couples – that “undiscovered country” where the outcome of such experiments can’t be seen until some distant future. Marriage is undeniably an institution created first to protect the interests of the family and children in particular. Can same-sex civil unions without children be called a “marriage”? Should such couples even rear children?

Dennis Prager wrote an article warning about the coming “insignificance of men and women when the most radical change in modern social history – the redefinition of marriage from male-female to include male-male and female-female” – is about to begin. He makes a compelling argument pointing to society’s unwitting support for the irrelevance of Mom and Dad. Does Mom no longer bring something unique to a child? Does Dad no longer bring something quite special to a child’s development in relation to the mother? The social scientists of academia write that it won’t make any difference. They proclaim this along with their seriously flawed theories and essays, the result being that a father and a mother are no longer uniquely equipped to bring a transformative holistic dimension to the raising of a child.

For the time being, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 may be the greatest obstacle to passing comprehensive civil unions. But is it fair to gays to deny them the total equality of marriage? Yes, it’s unfair. But some will say that the price paid for eliminating this unfairness is enormous. It may ultimately redefine society in ways that no one can grasp yet. Voters need to read and pay close attention to the words inside any new legislation on the matter of the redefinition of marriage. The costs of taking this subject casually may be immeasurable. And it appears that the academic promoters of moral relativism have so far accomplished what they set out to do.