Dear Editor:
Mr. Allen’s Sept. 23 essay on the concept of the traditional
nuclear family values, was as interesting as it was disturbing. He
explains the humble beginnings of family life this way:
”
The family marries, fools around, children arrive.
”
Dear Editor:
Mr. Allen’s Sept. 23 essay on the concept of the traditional nuclear family values, was as interesting as it was disturbing. He explains the humble beginnings of family life this way: “The family marries, fools around, children arrive.”
He then outlines the proper roles of each traditional family member. The husband assumes the role as head of household and trains the wife for her role. Upon the arrival of the first child, the husband assumes the role of sole supporter, the wife assumes her role as mother and caretaker and surrenders herself to a life of servitude based on the husband’s training. In return she receives economic support for herself and her children. The children are, for whatever reason, seen as troublesome and therefore likened to liberals.
The only common bond in the family are the children, for best results the family must endure for 20 to 25 years or until the youngest child reaches maturity. To this end the family has taken a non-binding “oath of lifetime commitment.”
Mr. Allen’s reasons why gays should not marry, are based on issues he believes are the essentials of the traditional family values that would be missing from a gay marriage. They are as follows, in no special order:
There are no defined roles, no division of authority. Each person is allowed to retain their independent economic roles. Therefore, no one has any financial control over the other.
Next is the issue of children and the fact that gay unions, as such, do not produce children, ignoring, however, that children are sometimes brought into the relationship by means of adoption or from a past relationship.
The most bizarre reason Mr. Allen gives for gays not being allowed to marry is a couple’s duty to the state, that marriage is a “grant of special privilege must be in support of a compelling state interest. The production of children is such an interest since the state cannot exist without them.” The flaw in this argument is that marriages are granted without any guarantee that there will be any children born from that union. In that case a childless marriage is no more a traditional nuclear family than a gay marriage.
Neither Mr. Allen or the state, according to Mr. Allen, find that the most common objection to gay marriage, one of sexual immorality, has no relevance in the debate. “I assert that the gratification of individual passion is a matter of indifference to the state.”
Harold Williams, San Jose
