Framing the Issue? You Got that Right!

I try to ignore National Review Online, I really do!

But I stumbled onto some real nonsense today and I can’t let it go.

How we talk about an issue affects how we think about it. Consider the language we use about marriage. A Fox News headline reads: “North Carolina voters take up amendment banning gay marriage.”

So what’s the problem? Framing. Today’s vote in North Carolina is not about banning anything. Nothing will be made illegal as a result. In all fifty states across the nation two people of the same sex can live together, have their religious community bless their union, and have their workplace offer them various joint benefits — if the religious communities and workplaces in question so desire. Many liberal houses of worship and progressive businesses have voluntarily decided to do so. There’s nothing illegal about this. There’s no ban on it.

What’s at issue is whether the government will recognize such unions as marriages — and then force every citizen and business to do so as well. This isn’t the legalization of something, this is the coercion and compulsion of others to recognize and affirm same-sex unions as marriages.

On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden declared his support of same-sex marriage: “I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction — beyond that.”

But this isn’t really about civil rights or civil liberties. No one is suggesting the state deny people who self-identify as gay or lesbian their rights to free speech, religious liberty, free association, or any other traditional civil liberty. The question is whether a new “civil right” — the right to have the government and private citizens recognize your same-sex sexual partnership as a marriage — ought to be created, redefining marriage in the process.
North Carolina, Biden, and Same-Sex Marriage

So many things bother me about this article that it is hard to know where to start.

First of all, don’t pretend it is only about the rights and benefits of marriage. Sure, that has something to do with it, but if that were the only issue, I think we would see more creative solutions. Why not two gay couples of different sexes teaming up to live together in sham marriages? The answer is obvious – the issue is about proper recognition, and the right to grow up, fall in love, and get married. The convention of marriage means something to people – it’s not just about legality.

In addition, the argument is ludicrous when applied like this. If this is a valid argument against gay marriage, why not apply it across the board?

No one would deny that marriages are about love, but notice what Biden has left out: children. One of the most important things marriage does is attach a man and a woman, as husband and wife, to become father and mother to any children their union brings forth. Marriage is one of the best anti-poverty programs for kids that exist, but it does this because mothering and fathering are two different phenomena, and kids need both the attention and role modeling of their mothers and fathers.
North Carolina, Biden, and Same-Sex Marriage

The clear implication is that a “real” marriage is between a man and a woman who plan to raise children. So, why do we recognize couple who cannot have children – and those who choose not to?

We could carry it even further. I firmly believe that a common faith should be part of a solid marriage, yet I don’t feel “coerced” into “recognizing” marriages between people of vastly different faiths. I know that people have different opinions than I do, and I recognize their rights to marry whomever they wish.

Perhaps gay marriage was not technically banned yesterday, but it was effectively.