To someone in pain, no sight is as welcome as that of a physician. We all have waited for the doctor, a bit cold, fretting perhaps about what the next few moments will bring. But the very sight of a doctor brings relief. Our hearts beat easier, the pain in our side is eased, our fever is lessened. The profession of physician is indeed a sacred profession, since doctors banish our pain, heal our illnesses, and save us from death.
It is fitting then that the emblem of the physician is a winged staff entwined by twin serpents. In ancient times, this was a herald’s staff, signaling to the public that its bearer was to be accorded honor and respect. A herald needed only hold his winged staff on high, and a crowd would fall silent, eagerly listening to what he had to say.
Indeed, no one speaks with the authority of a doctor. The public willingly grants a physician a hearing on any subject, though he is an expert only on health and disease. What a doctor has to say outside his field of expertise is useful, but not conclusive. No one would ask an attorney to testify in a court of law about how to treat a sprained ankle or cure an ingrown toenail.
Many people in Maine have spoken out publicly about the same-sex marriage law. We have heard from teachers, lawyers and men of the cloth. The public owes a great debt to Dr. Erik Steele for speaking out on the matter in his Oct. 6 column “Offering the naked truth on same-sex marriage.” Even though the subject is far from his area of expertise, Dr. Steele has done the public a favor by stating in a clear, concise manner the position of the gay rights movement. Same-sex marriage, he claims, is a matter of denying homosexuals the right to marry.
But a logical thinker immediately sees a flaw in this argument. The gay rights movement claims that such a right exists — and that is far from obvious. This is the central question in the debate, a question wholly ignored by the homosexual rights movement. Those who advocate same-sex marriage must explain to the public why relationships that do not perform the function of marriage — that is procreation and the raising of one’s own biological offspring — should be given the name of marriage.
Not only do these relationships fail to meet the definition of marriage, they introduce the element of sexual practices that are intrinsically immoral and harmful. We may even say that these relationships perform the opposite function of marriage, since they teach away from procreation by giving the example of a sterile union to the next generation. Where then, is the right to marriage?
No matter how often the other side demands “marriage equality,” an appeal to emotion and popular sentiment falls short of a valid argument. Nor is it fair to call those who deny a nonexistent right to marriage “homophobes” and then compare them to racists and sexists. In contemporary society, the label of racist, sexist or homophobe carries with it very heavy social sanctions. For that reason, branding someone a homophobe goes beyond the realm of political discourse, and is in essence, a form of intimidation. A debate must be conducted on the basis of reason, not name-calling. Such tactics serve no useful purpose in a democracy.
A physician must be kind and full of empathy, that much is certain. But he or she must be more than warm-hearted, since emotion and sentiment make for poor diagnosticians and healers. Physicians must examine each case on scientific terms. Only then do they discover the root of the problem, and find their way through to a cure.
Similarly, the issue of same-sex marriage is worthy of a careful examination on logical and ethical terms. We are, after all, deciding the fate of the most fundamental institution in our society. We must first of all understand the proper definition of marriage. To fail to do so runs the risk of writing a very bad prescription for Maine.
Fritz Spencer, a Bangor native, is the editor of The RECORD for The Christian Civic League of Maine.