There is no reason why gay marriage and traditional marriage can't coexist within a society
Nationally, conflict over marriage equality continues.The other day, Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindall, expressed his intent to support a constitutional amendment which would act to define marriage, in the legal sense, as between a man and a woman.
He also made comments which expressed latent fear that businesses would not be able to continue to discriminate on the basis of their personal beliefs in traditional marriage, saying “Already, Christian businesses are facing discrimination if they don’t want to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate their sincerely held beliefs”
“We do not support discrimination and believe that these two foundational values can simultaneously co-exist […] The ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges does not permit states to bar same-sex couples from marriage, but the ruling in no way forces specific individuals to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, or to perform or facilitate same sex marriage.”
As stated in a previous post, the SCOTUS ruling merely deals with marriage certificates. Churches that do not condone gay marriage do not have to wed gay couples. However, state and local officials have to legally abide by and fulfill marriage contracts if applied for by gay couples. So far Bobby Jindall is complying with the ruling.
In an article on his website, Dr. Albert Mohler argued in terms of theology “We cannot be silent, and we cannot join the moral revolution that stands in direct opposition to what we believe the Creator has designed, given, and intended for us. We cannot be silent, and we cannot fail to contend for marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”
What is it that truly defines marriage? Legally speaking, this institution must be based, in my opinion, on the union of (at least in terms of the present day) multiple individuals of any sex, race, or any other “discriminatory” labels. From the perspective of the spirit of the constitution, it seems fairly evident that traditional marriage is an institution in so far as it has been legally reinforced as the only standard of marriage by law. Following this logic it seems fairly plain that this is precisely why it is called “traditional.”
A legally affirmed place for same-sex marriage does not nullify the possibility for the existence of “traditional” marriage. What is the difference fundamentally between a same sex couple, which, for whatever reason decides to adopt children or opt for medical fertilization options and a “traditional” couple which happens to be infertile or which happens to decide for either of the latter two reasons pertaining to the aforementioned same sex couple?
One could say that, at least in terms of the entity which is a legally binding marriage, that these two ideas can basically transpose onto one another. Now, what then is the threat to traditional marriage? There technically is none, because, theoretically, the law cannot prohibit such a practice, as it has been a legal practice for such a long time.
Conservative politicians who continue this specific fight to impede personal freedom, in this sense, are technically pushing for legal discrimination against the free activity of persons. This is veiled, through narrative, as a fight for the maintenance of a specifically defined way of life.
This sense is flawed in one way. Fundamentally, those who subscribe to certain religions or philosophies are free to do so, even in the context of a mutually coexistent reality within a society which respects individual choice.