Gay Marriage

.
First, a question– We often hear that marriage is a “social institution.”  But is marriage a construct of society?  Or is society a construction of marriage?

     I would argue that society is defined by the nature of its families, not the other way around.  And since family begets society, it is the union of one man and one woman that should be held in higher esteem than any other bond.
     Now I don’t doubt that two homosexual partners can love each other (or children) as much as two heterosexual partners, but traditional marriage and homosexual unions will always remain on two different playing fields because the structure of society is formed over multiple generations.  Not only do homosexual unions, by nature, not produce the next generation, their adopted children are also denied being raised by both a father and a mother.
     Normally this is where I’d hear studies quoted that prove children raised by gays turn out to be just as normal as children raised by straights.  Okay.  So they’re not murderers and rapists.  That’s swell.  But let’s talk about two lesbian partners who adopt a girl–  Who sets the example for an adopted daughter should the daughter want to start her own family?  Whose lead does she follow in order to learn how to be a wife and mother?  I’ll even grant that two mothers can somehow pull that one off.  But who sets the example for their adopted son should he want to become a husband and father?  Clearly not his parent.
     The nature of traditional marriage and traditional family transcends individual generations.  Men pass their knowledge of masculinity down to their sons:  They teach them how to be direct, how to command authority, how to be practical around the house, and how to bond with other men.  Most importantly, they hand down their knowledge of how to love and respect a woman, and how to become a father when that time comes.  Women pass their knowledge of femininity down to their daughters:  They teach them how to communicate their emotions, how to show compassion, how to display beauty both inside and outside the home, and how to sympathize with other women.  Most importantly, they hand down their knowledge of how to love and respect a man, and how to become a mother when that time comes.
     A young female’s best resource for learning how to be a wife and mother is not her gay father’s friend or sister or any other secondary source; it is her own mother, who conveniently also has experience being a wife.
     (And I realize that some people choose not to be married and not to have children.  But should you not be prepared for marriage and children if, by some twist of life, you want to change your mind?)

A homosexual union, by nature, exists for a single generation among its loving constituents.  But its framework does not stand the test of time, and therefore its bond is simply not as fundamental to society’s family structure as traditional marriage.

————————————————–

I pose another question–  Is marriage a right?

     Not under the United States Consitution.  State sanctioning of your marriage is not a right, in much the same way that your ability to drive your car on the roads of this country is not a right.  Such licenses are not granted to everyone who wants them.  Those who want the license must request it, and, given that these individuals are qualified, their license is granted by the state in which they reside.
     Family members can’t marry.  Children can’t marry.  People who are already married can’t marry.  Because some people may be granted a license while others are denied the very same license, the action which is protected by the license is not, by definition, a “right.”  Therein, the licensing of heterosexual marriage is not a “right”, so I fail to see how the licensing of homosexual marriage can be called a “right.”
     On the other hand, homosexual couples do have a legitimate case to call for the same legal treatment as heterosexual couples.  The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment supports this contention, and civil unions are a means by which this legal equality is reached.  But let’s be careful here; let’s keep things straight–  The Equal Protection Clause provides equal treatment under the law, but it says nothing about the definition of marriage.  Only those qualified for marriage licenses may obtain them, and under the traditional definition of marriage, homosexuals are simply not qualified.
    
     Also– In the Declaration of Independence it is written that we each have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Our Constitution, its amendments, and all the laws that are passed beyond our Constitution are intended to protect these three fundamental rights.  (i.e.  Murder is illegal because it infringes on one’s right to life.  The right to a speedy trial exists because any other condition would infringe upon one’s right to liberty.)
     One’s access to a state-sanctioned marriage is not tied to one of the three fundamental rights.  It may be painful to admit, but the “pursuit of happiness” is not infringed upon by a denial of a marriage license.  How do I know?  (1) The “pursuit of happiness” does not entitle you to anyone else’s approval of the way you choose to live your life, and (2) if you need the government to grant you a particular privelege in order for you to be happy, then you’ve lost your focus on what really makes you happy.

————————————————–

Next, I’ll be blunt:  Allowing homosexuals to marry devalues the institution of marriage.

     “But how does allowing two people who love each other to marry cheapen the meaning of marriage?”  I’ll tell you how.  Because the more groups that are allowed to marry, the less value marriage has.  If everyone wins a trophy, then nobody’s trophy is worth anything.  And so it is with marriage:  part of its value is derived from its exclusivity.
     So here I pose a question to you, my reader:  Where do you draw the line?  If you were in charge, Which groups would you allow marry, and which groups would you not allow to marry?  Would you stop at heterosexual couples?  Or heterosexual and homosexual couples?  Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and second cousins?  Heterosexuals, homosexuals, second cousins, and animal lovers?  Okay, this can get ridiculous.  But to maintain the sanctity of marriage (and remember, the degree of sanctity I leave up to YOU), a line needs to be drawn.
     Jews, Muslims, and Christians (myself included) draw the line at heterosexual couples.  You might draw the line elsewhere, and that’s an opinion that I respect.  What I don’t appreciate, though, is an unwillingness to draw any line whatsoever.  I do not respect a complete lack of deference to the fact that marriage, by nature, is exclusive.  If you can’t form for yourself a divide between “these groups should be allowed to marry” and “these groups should not be allowed to marry”, then you really don’t know what’s at stake.

————————————————–

Here I offer two warnings to homosexuals:

(1)  Do not look to non-homosexuals for an endorsement of your lifestyle.

Those who believe that acts of homosexuality are morally wrong will not be swayed by state sponsorship of your marriages.  And why?  Because morality is not derived from the state; it is derived from that which created us (whatever you believe that to be).  Right and wrong existed before organized government; right and wrong will outlive organized government.  Laws change; morality does not.

(2)  If you push against traditional marriage advocates, we will push back.

Many of us have very little to hold against homosexuals as individuals, but if we feel that our institution of marriage is threatened, we will react.

     The more this issue is forced into the public square, the more state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage will appear.  Notice that every time such an initiative is proposed, traditional marriage wins.  Why?  Because the American people recognize that this is not a “civil rights movement”.  Ending slavery– that was a civil rights movement.  Ending black/white segregation– that was about civil rights.  Allowing women to vote– that was about civil rights.  Giving women equal pay for equal work– that’s about civil rights.  Allowing homosexuals to enjoy the same benefits that state-sanctioned marriage affords to heterosexual couples?  This is about priveleges, not civil rights.

————————————————–

And lastly, some advice to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike:  Marriage isn’t broken, so don’t try to fix it.

The union between man and woman has been held in the highest esteem for thousands of years by cultures spanning the entire globe.  To say that marriage is “constantly being redefined” is both factually incorrect and shamelessly ignorant.

The bond between man and woman forms families, families form communities, and communities create society, over multiple generations.  A bond so fundamental to our culture must be given the respect it is due, and that includes placing heterosexual unions ahead of homosexual ones by maintaining the traditional definition of marriage.

————————————————–

See also:  “Cause & Effect: The Benefits of Traditional Marriage” by Paul Strand