George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
Point and Counterpoint: Abortion and Alternatives
- Article 34, for Sunday, March 9, 2008
GAY MARRIAGE, OR CIVIL
UNION, OR WHAT?
As discussed in our column last month,
there is mounting scientific evidence that Homosexuality is very often
not a “mental disorder” or a life-style choice; but rather, that it is
a consequence of specific biologic and/or congenital developments not
under the control of either mother or offspring. Certainly, the
“nature v nurture” debate can be joined here. But there is much
more evidence available that much more “nurturing” in a concerted
- but misguided – effort to steer a homosexual child onto a
heterosexual path takes place than the reverse…and that such efforts
may have tragic outcomes.
It then follows that two such responsible individuals of the same sex
may naturally want to avail themselves of the personal, emotional,
supportive and also economic benefits accorded by the state of legal
Marriage to heterosexuals. There lies the rub – and the
Our thesis is as follows:
1) “Civil Unions” between committed homosexual couples…Yes;
2) Marriage between persons of the same sex…No;
3) Assisted “procreation” of children by means of surrogate mothers,
donated sperm and the like…No;
4) Access to adoption…Yes.
Marriage has existed since God created Eve from Adam in the Garden of
Eden and joined them until death. From then until now, the state
of Marriage has been guided, administered and controlled by both civil
and religious authorities…with widely varying norms and rules,
dependent both on time and on geography. Such precedents are
nearly timeless and have always had as their goal the guarantee of
stable procreation and child rearing, for the perpetuation of human
life and civil society.
At no time in civil society, as known to us, has this institution been
open to homosexual couples. Nor should it be, in our opinion,
because it would be too disruptive to society as a whole and would
endanger the security of procreation that is society’s intent.
On the other hand, we see no problem with a different legal
institution, perhaps even open to blessing by appropriate religious
authorities in order to strengthen the commitment of the couple
themselves. This would redress any civil laws found to be
discriminatory toward committed gay households. The title of this
new civil institution should in no way allow confusion with the
historical institution of Marriage or Matrimony.
With the above strict caveats related to childbirth, we believe
this position to be reasonable, civil, humane, and Christian. It
is our hope that this matter can be settled without the unproductive,
aggressive and wholly unacceptable demands of a small minority of
homosexuals regarding access to the Institution of Marriage.
George A. Sprecace, M.D., J.D.
(c) Copyright 1999-2019, Allergy Associates of New London, PC