Those who think they’re on the side of history should know: Their side is a slope.Those who think they’re on the right side should be made aware: Their side is a slope.
Mother’s Day is coming up — the day we pay lip service to all that Mother brings to parenting. A month later, Father’s Day arrives — and we pay lip service to what Father brings to parenting.
A few of us troglodytes still truly believe that Mother brings something special that a father doesn’t, and that Father brings something special that a mother doesn’t.
But a growing number of us don’t believe there’s anything unique about gender when it comes to raising a family.
Not that long ago, the book “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus ” sold 50 million copies because its explanation of why men were different from women resonated with many. Today, many people see the sexes as interchangeable.
Just two years ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that if a woman had been on an Arizona appellate court, she would have understood how a young girl felt when strip-searched, and the court’s decision would have changed. Now, Justice Ginsburg is about to rule, in effect, on whether womanhood makes a difference in raising a child.
Will she say men married to each other can understand a young girl as well as a woman? Or will she be consistent and say that a young girl needs a mother?
President Obama used to exhort men to take responsibility and be fathers. Now, by taking the side of gay marriage, he says that two women can do the job.
Obama no doubt wants to be on the side of history’s march to gay marriage.
For all those gay-marriage enthusiasts who claim they are “on the side of history,” I ask: Will you also be on the side of history when marriage is no longer solely between two people? For why would history deny marriage to two people who love each other just because one of them is already married to a third, whom she also loves?
I would also ask: Why would history deny two 15-year olds who love each other the right to marry? Finally: How do we define love?
A brother and sister love each other, and might benefit from the legal rights attached to marriage (no one says they have to have sex together). Am I making a mockery of the issue? Am I exaggerating? Twenty years ago, people would have said that about forecasts of gay marriage.
History has brought us to the point where a Kardashian can profess married love for 72 hours. Is there anything magical about the number 72? What would stop someone for loving for seven hours, or seven minutes? Who is to discriminate against short marriages? Prostitution could be legalized by quick marriages followed by quicker divorces.
An April 30 Star Tribune column (“Wanted: Men to mentor children”) stated: “But research has shown that some of the most effective mentoring comes from matching youth and mentors of the same sex.” So, there is research that says something is different about how genders mentor or raise other genders.
Perhaps I’m fighting a rear-guard action. But I believe the chief benefit of marriage to government is the development of new citizens. And best practices say that is done through a mother and a father, each bringing different intrinsic human values by virtue of their sex.
In other words, a citizen of Earth is best created by a woman from Venus and a man from Mars.
Have a happy Mother’s Day while you can. History says its days are numbered.
Michael Ebnet is a writer in Edina.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.