Cape Gazette

Gay marriage: more legalistic and twisted semantics

By Chuck Griffiths | Apr 25, 2013

Love Means Nothing

Love is just a score if you happen to be talking about tennis; otherwise it means a lot.

There are many kinds of love. There is religious love. There is romantic love. There is parental love. Then there is gay love, which I suppose is a subdivision of romantic love. There is brotherly love. There is sisterly love. Then there is marital love. Each type of love is important enough that people have been willing to die for it. But only marital love is recognized by God and the state.

A Biblical translation commands us to “go forth and multiply." The government agrees so completely with this command that if you obey, you will get a tax break for each child. Why is this important? Let’s look at Mr. and Mrs. Farmer. If they don’t go forth and multiply, there won't be replacement Farmers to grow crops. If Mr. and Mrs. Truck Driver aren’t fruitful, produce won't get to market. And if Mr. and Mrs. Baker aren’t fruitful, we won't have bread. These unscientific examples, though simplistic, anticipate an economic axiom: demography is destiny. They also provide fodder for the Law of Unanticipated Consequences.

The gay community wishes to have their unions recognized as marriage. Why? There are only two plausible reasons: (1) recognition by God, and, (2) tax breaks. They may be disappointed on at least one count and probably two. Gays cannot go forth and multiply, and gay couples, although loved by God, will not be recognized by God as married.

Regarding the government's recognition (i.e. tax breaks), I doubt if gay couples will be granted the same benefits as heterosexual married couples for two reasons: (1) Their union does nothing to benefit society, and (2) Under the equal protection clause of the Constitution, I believe that If the government were to recognize gay marriage, the Supreme Court would be forced to extend those same benefits to all loving couples living together, be they mother and daughter, brother and sister or sister and sister. This will engender more legalistic and twisted semantics to get around the fact that non-heterosexual unions can bear no more fruit than 'Love' in a tennis match. And, we all know that means nothing

Chuck Griffiths
Ocean View

Comments (1)
Posted by: Jim Austin | Apr 25, 2013 10:52

The legislation before Delaware legislators this Spring is very clear--it is for the recognition of loving gay couples who want to make it official in CIVIL marriage. Churches can choose to withhold their blessing of a marriage under the proposed statute, just like they have always been able to do for heterosexual marriages they may have issues with. Some will, some won't.


Mr. Griffiths, you and possibly your choice of religious affiliation may not choose to recognize all the same-gender marriages that are in our future. Fine. But you and your church do not have the right to demand strict adherence to a particular set of religious dogma by everyone else. That's how the Taliban does it. The USA was founded on the principal of separation of church and state.


Civil same-gender marriages strengthen relationships, and do indeed strengthen a community. It is, in fact, the most conservative outcome of a loving relationship because it binds couples through legal commitments with (including Federal) over 1,000 different rights and responsibilities. Gay couples deserve no less than equal treatment.


Marriage between any couple does indeed mean something. To many, it means everything. Gay couples are no different in this regard. It is a shame that it has taken over 200 years for this great nation to recognize that fact. Better late than never.

If you wish to comment, please login.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.