Don’t Play Russian Roulette with Marriage (Part 3 of 3)

Continuation from 29 April and 1 May blogs

 

III. Homosexual couples should not be denied to marry.

 

Extending legal protection to sexual preferences and elevating personal sexual preferences to that of a “civil right” (ultimately leading to the acceptance of same-sex “marriage” and marital entitlements) will not simply alter American culture and traditional marriage; it will destroy the culture and the sacred institution as we know it.

 

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex “marriages.” Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said it’s unrealistic to think the military would be out front of the rest of the government in offering benefits to unmarried partners. “They don’t do it for straight people, and they’re very unlikely to do it for gay people,” Frank said, unless, someone were to use the U.S. military to impose a risky “social experiment” to satisfy an agenda.    

 

The same-sex “marriage” movement has crystallized the difference between two distinct views of marriage:

·         The recent view advocated by same-sex proponents can be summed up as follows: “Marriage is an essentially private, intimate, emotional relationship created by two people for their own personal reasons to enhance their own personal well-being. Marriage is created by the couple, for the couple.” Under this view, the human arrangement is merely a private, and, perhaps in some cases a sexually intimate relationship that deserves a license by the government in order to obtain certain legally recognized benefits. This view of marriage believes that it is discriminatory to favor one kind of personal relationship (between a man and a woman) over other kinds of relationships (between people of the same sex). Those who advocate this private view believe marriage is “just one lifestyle choice among many.”

·         The historic view of marriage does not consider the institution to be merely a private relationship but rather a public good. What every known human society calls marriage shares certain basic, recognizable features, including most especially the privileges accorded to the reproductive couple in order to protect both the interests of children and the interests of the society. In every society, marriage is the sexual union where childbearing and raising is not only tolerated but applauded and encouraged.  By socially defining and supporting a particular type of sexual union, the society defines for its young what the preferred relationship is and what purposes it serves.

 

Understanding marriage as a public good is fundamentally different from viewing it as merely a private relationship. Marriage is the fundamental, cross-cultural institution for bridging the male and female divide so that children have loving, committed mothers and fathers. The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers; that societies need babies; and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so, as to give their children stable families in which to grow up and thrive.

 

The problem with endorsing same-sex “marriage” is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family norms, but it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults’ desires. The debate over same-sex “marriage” is not some sideline discussion. It is the marriage debate itself. Either we win or we lose the central meaning of marriage. The great threat unisex marriage poses to marriage as a social institution is not some distant or nearby slippery slope; it is an abyss at our feet. If we cannot explain why unisex marriage is, in itself, a disaster; we have already lost the marriage ideal.

 

Same-sex “marriage” would enshrine in law a public judgment that the public desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen “good.” It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.

 

Marriage between one man and one woman is a public good that is best for society, and particularly its children and future generations. Legalizing same-sex “marriage” would equalize same-sex relations with marriage and parenthood. In doing so, marriage and parenthood would be severed, and the structure of children raised with a mom and a dad would suffer. It is one thing to tolerate personal relationships that are different from ours, but it is another thing for society to elevate such a relationship to a preferred status; and, that’s what same-sex “marriage” would do. To sanction same-sex “marriage” would be to say that there is no relevance to gender; and thus, result in the abolition of gender. Indeed, many same-sex and transsexual proponents advocate the abolition of gender, stating that the concept of male and female is an outdated, stereotypic model that needs to be abolished.

 

Once the government says that gay couples have a right to have their commitments recognized by the state as a “marriage,” it becomes next to impossible to deny the same right to polygamous or even cohabitating relatives and friends. And once everyone’s relationship is recognized, marriage is gone; only a system of flexible relationship contracts is left.

 

Some would ask: Is equal protection violated by prohibiting same-sex “marriage?” Preserving marriage between one man and one woman does not violate equal protection any more than gender-specific restrooms. Marriage has never been open to any and every one. The Supreme Court has approved banning polygamous marriages, and most states ban incestuous marriages and place age restrictions on marriage. These restrictions have never been thought to violate equal protection.

 

Some argue that same-sex “marriage” proponents want marriage for its benefits. If benefits are the issue, then instead of deconstructing marriage itself, advocates of same-sex “marriage” should focus on the specific benefit desired rather than create a new form of marriage. Marriage is more than benefits. Marriage is a universal human institution. Marriage predated America, as it did every civilized society. Thus, before there was any law regarding marriage, marriage existed. Marriage is not merely a set of benefits. The laws and benefits associated with marriage are designed to support the institution because it is so fundamental to our society and future existence. Laws that promote marriage between one man and one woman to the exclusion of any other are supported by compelling governmental interests in the preservation of society and the public good.

 

Although for different reasons, same-sex “marriage” opponents and some states rights advocates oppose amending the Constitution to protect marriage between one man and one woman. Protecting traditional marriage is, and always has been, a federal matter. The act of amending the Constitution is an exercise in states’ rights. Marriage will be national one way or another. Either the courts will dictate marriage policy or the people will. If a federal constitutional amendment is not adopted, the courts will no doubt alter traditional marriage policy.

 

Now some argue that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, and thus should not license marriage. In this way marriages could consist of either private, religious or secular ceremonial services, but with no state sanction. While this argument has some surface appeal, it fundamentally misunderstands the importance of marriage and its impact on society. The state has always been empowered to regulate in order to protect the public health and welfare of its citizens. Thus, we have laws protecting our personal security and property rights. Although consensual, we have laws regarding prostitution, gambling, and private drug use. The reason society has chosen to regulate these areas of our lives is because these private acts have public consequences. The same is true with marriage. Marriage is not merely a personal, private act. Children are part of marriage, and as such, the greater society is affected.

 

It is neither wise nor desirable to deregulate marriage because, in so doing, our society would suffer. No, marriage is a public good, and it is precisely one of the areas in which the government should and must continue to regulate in order to protect the public good. Sanctioning same-sex “marriage” would have a profound destabilizing effect on the health, welfare, education and morals of the country. We should not play Russian roulette with marriage.

 

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.

Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army

Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel