In a recent Daily News editorial (Opinion, Jan. 10), Devin Rokyta, writing for the editorial board, preaches that same-sex marriage is the "morally right" thing to support. But on what moral ground is he standing?
Does he believe his position is "natural" or "biblical" or what? (Notice that everyone imposes morality and that moral relativism is impossible. Why is that?) Gov. Chris Gregoire says discrimination by the state is wrong. Does this mean if a woman's "orientation" is to marry two women or to marry her brother or to marry her beloved dogs - no, seriously - the state shouldn't discriminate?
When we strip away the pious talk about morality, what the well-intentioned Rokyta is saying is this: there's no natural family to affirm; natural differences between men's and women's bodies point to nothing significant; procreation is neither here nor there; kids having a mom and dad is not important or worth defending. Marriage on this nihilistic view is nothing more than a legal fiction, a tool of the state, a policy, which means "marriage" can be whatever we want it to.
It is important to point out that every American has equal access to marriage now; what Rokyta and Gregoire are asking for is not greater rights for individuals but greater empowering of the state; politicians, not content to affirm marriage, will now be in the business of redefining it for everyone. Marriage will now be nothing more than a union of some sort; it will no longer be the ideal that nature and God intended: a stunning work of complementary colors, a mysterious joining of opposites, a celebration of the goodness of being different, of being male and female - an affirmation that some things exist to be, like life itself, simply received as gift.
Jayson Grieser
Moscow
