The Same-sex “Marriage” War: Why the Traditional Definition Should Remain the Standard

“We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past,
and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.”
-President Barack Obama
“Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize” December 10, 2009

Preface

I would like to preface my words by stating that my opinions are not meant nor should be taken as personal attacks to those who identify as homosexual.  I love and value them as people and my heart goes out to them in any valid injustices they suffer.  If nothing else I say is understood in the way I intend it, please understand this: loving people who identify as homosexual and opposing same-sex marriage are not mutually exclusive.  There is a difference between loving a person and actively endorsing his or her actions.  My statements are to address the issues involved in defining marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman.  Marriage affects all of society, not just the alleged rights of a minority.

Introduction

On December 10, 2009, President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.  In his acceptance speech, he talked of war between and within nations, its realities, and its consequences.  While pondering his remarks, I could not help but see a parallel in his message to a central focus in America’s “culture wars”—namely, genderless or so-called same-sex “marriage”.  I use his speech as a both a backdrop and a point of departure.  As such, his statements are sometimes used in a different context than his strict original intention.  Nevertheless, I believe the comparisons are valid and the principles completely applicable.  Like the President, “I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of [marriage].  What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require . . . vision.”[1] Unlike the President, I argue that if he or this nation truly espouses the principles he invokes in his Nobel speech, then the first step to strengthening marriage is to reverse the trend that has led us to even consider including same-sex couples into the institution of marriage.

Accordingly, though I agree with proponents of gay marriage that “our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally,”[2] I profoundly disagree that extending the word “marriage” to include gay couples is only about “equality, freedom, and fairness, for all.”[3] The implications surrounding a redefinition of marriage go much deeper than merely “extending freedom” to everyone.  If we fail to approach this issue with a farseeing vision—one that takes into account the history of flourishing societies, holds as sacred the rights of children, and acknowledges the diametric reality of good and evil, it will be nothing less than a complete deprecation of “the legacy of generations past” and “the fortitude and foresight” to which the President rightly attributes America’s greatness.

“Separate but Equal” and the Nature of Homosexuality

A common objection to the traditional standard of marriage is that refusing to apply the term “marriage” to homosexual relationships is somehow equivalent to the “separate but equal” doctrine that was applied to justify African-American segregation.  This is fundamentally flawed.  Perhaps General Colin Powell said it best in response to then-Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) when she tried to compare policies of segregation of blacks to current treatment of homosexuals:

“I know you are a history major but I can assure you I need no reminders concerning the history of African-Americans in the defense of their nation and the tribulations they faced. I am part of that history. . . . Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”[4]

Those who hold that these issues are equivalent to “separate but equal” probably do so because they believe that homosexuality is a determined fact.  This may be treated as a convenient truth in the minds of same-sex “marriage” supporters, but finds little support in reality.[5] Even if homosexuality were “proven” to be innate in all cases, it should not justify the immediate acceptance of the behavioral manifestations.  It is sophistry to say that just because one is inclined to do something, that thing is justified, inevitable, or acceptable.  It is not impossible to control sexual inclinations, it is not self-hate to try to suppress them, and it is possible to change.[6] People always have the choice to act or not on even the strongest inclinations.  As Mr. Obama admonished, invoking the words of Martin Luther King: “I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”[7] What is the eternal “oughtness” of marriage?  I submit that one need go no further than facing the question “what if everyone did it?”

Based on this reality, there is not enough legal justification to accept same-sex “marriage” on the basis that one’s “sexual orientation” is somehow equivalent to one’s race.[8] Once again, even if homosexuality were proven to be inborn, it would not insulate same-sex “marriage” from an evaluation of its merits as an institution.  Therefore, we are left to decide the standing of genderless marriage as a legal principle based on its merits.[9] The question then, is this: is it in the best interest of children, our social structure, and the nation as a whole to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples?  This is the heart of the debate, yet the research is quite clear: only marriage between a man and a woman has shown to be the best for children[10] and society.  Therefore, laws should shore up traditional marriage by all means possible.

To say that we can maintain a separate religious definition of marriage, or that allowing homosexuals to marry does not affect anyone else, is to ignore the influence the law has over society.  What is the law but a reflection of what is accepted as right?[11] Mr. Obama again makes a relevant point: “we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer . . . That is what makes us different . . . That is a source of our strength.”[12] The standards of this nation, including marriage standards, are infused in its laws.  If we change the law, it says that we have changed what is right—and not only will that affect societal behavior,[13] but anyone who disagrees with that will now have the weight of the law against them.  The truth is that any change in the balance of rights will affect both sides, and awarding marital status to homosexuals will inevitably collide with and threaten religious liberties.[14] No one lives in a vacuum, and changing marriage for anyone will change marriage for everyone.  In the place of such permissiveness, I want to believe the President that “America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.”[15] And few things are as “universal” as the standard of marriage being between men and women.

Discrimination

Second, changing the definition of marriage is itself inherently lopsided and discriminatory.  Not only does a minority force a majority to accept a weakened form of an institution pivotal to the stability and perpetuation of society, the proposed redefinition would continue to exclude other groups.  The idea of “liberty and justice for all”[16] is a praiseworthy principle. And I actually can sympathize with same-sex couples who, in their view, are just as connected to their partners as are heterosexual couples and who want that connection recognized.  What I don’t believe is that the only motive of advocates for same-sex “marriage” is to “guarantee the same freedoms and rights to everyone.”[17] Not only does their position advocate expanding the definition of marriage to include merely one more group, it also takes away the right of others to retain the cultural heritage of marriage that has, until very recently,[18] always and universally been understood as a uniquely male-female partnership—hardly a proposal that is “equal to everyone.”

If advocates of same-sex “marriage” truly believed in equality and that “all you need is love”[19] to make a marriage, then the logical extension from these values necessitates them accepting the marriages of polygamists, bigamists, or any group whose members—human or otherwise—claim that “they are in love.”  They do not support such a position, but if we expand marriage once for one minority view, what is to keep people from further pushing the boundaries of what marriage means?  As President Obama so clearly expressed, “America — in fact, no nation — can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.”[20] Further, if equality “under the law” is all same-sex couples wanted, why weren’t California same-sex marriage advocates satisfied with the California Family Code’s statute which reads that “domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections and benefits . . . as . . . [married] spouses”?[21]

What the issue of same-sex marriage really advocates is favored treatment—to force all of society to believe that there is no difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual ones.  If same-sex couples want equal treatment, they actually already do: A straight person has the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as someone who is “gay.”  The current course of action of proponents to extend the definition of marriage to include gay couples is equivalent to trying to define the word “black” to be the same as “white”—essentially abolishing any distinctions along with any meaning.  But, if we want to preserve what marriage actually means, homosexual relationships simply cannot be included.  Again, a homosexual couple can be deeply connected emotionally—but marriage is more than just emotions.  Two people of the same gender can’t achieve the complete, consummate, potentially creative union that a heterosexual couple is endowed with phenotypically.  To insist otherwise unfairly diminishes the unique role and value of the union between a man and a woman which union exclusively possesses the power to procreate—a social good[22] worth protecting not only because of government’s needs for children, but more vitally because of children’s needs to have parents.

This forced favoritism will almost certainly generate future cases of inequality—but at a different crowd: anyone who believes that same-sex “marriage” is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage.  If the law places same-sex marriage on the same footing as traditional marriage, it puts those who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman at a rhetorical[23] and legal disadvantage.  It will weaken the ability of parents to instill traditional values in the rising generation.  In short, it will create an environment that fosters reverse intolerance.  It will force onto society a new value system—one inherently hostile to religion—and silence those who wish to speak their consciences.  I again completely agree with Obama’s declaration that “if we dismiss [faith] as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make . . . then we lose what’s best about humanity.  We lose our sense of possibility.  We lose our moral compass.”[24]

I’d like to believe that my first amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion will continue to be honored.  However, enshrining gay marriage within the law will contribute, over time, to the “imposition of homosexual marriage”[25] in more ubiquitous situations.  Unfortunately, there are already hundreds of examples, both documented and undocumented of “harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry”[26] against those who hold the conjugal definition of marriage.  This will only worsen if genderless marriage becomes established, enforceable law.[27] As Princeton professor Robert P. George warns, “supporters of same-sex marriage would and are now, in the name of equality, demanding the use of governmental power to whip churches and others into line . . . once marriage is compromised or formally redefined, principles of non-discrimination law are quickly used as cudgels against religious communities and families who wish to uphold true marriage.”[28] Sadly, it seems as though those crying out for tolerance and nondiscrimination are themselves doing precisely the opposite to those who disagree with them.[29]

Far-Reaching Consequences

Perhaps more important are the transcendent, underlying principles of this debate.  I find it thoroughly and tragically ironic that we can’t build a park or a grocery store without a detailed “impact analysis” report, but we can change the meaning of marriage—which predates society[30]—by simply convincing a majority of judges that the rights of a small[31] minority are being infringed.  Marriage is not just about rights, it is about the foundational fabric of our society.  Opponents argue that what they do in private as consensual adults does not affect anyone else, but labeling such behavior as worthy of the term “marriage” has consequences for society as a whole.[32] Marriage has always been an association recognized publicly by communities.  Among other things, it stands for the rearing and teaching of children.  Redefining marriage to include same-sex partners signals a radical shift from a community-benefiting association to an agreement that benefits adults only.  Roger Scruton has stated one aspect of this shift that, “[i]nstead of regarding the family as the present generation’s way of sacrificing itself for the next, we are being asked to create families in which the next generation is sacrificed for the pleasure of the present one.”[33] Again, I pray that the President—and all citizens—see the truth in his statement that “Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.”[34]

This development accentuates a deeper issue plaguing society: the tendency to emphasize rights over responsibilities.  The rhetoric of those against protecting the traditional definition of marriage is filled with talk about “rights,” as if granting them were the sole purpose of society.  Nowhere does such rhetoric take into account the equally-important responsibility each citizen has toward the larger society.  It is this tendency that is the crux of my lamentations over this and similar movements.[35] The world is becoming an increasingly harsh, violent, and selfish place, and I believe it is due in large part to people only caring about their rights, their benefits, and their well-being—not their individual responsibilities. In Mr. Obama’s words, I, too, deplore the “deep ambivalence”[36] that has pervaded—not only legitimate military causes—but all honorable causes that extend beyond what immediately affects oneself.  That is what marriage is all about.  It is not “just about love.”  It is not just about rights.  It is not just about individuals.  Marriage is a responsibility.  It is a responsibility not only to the person you are marrying (an aspect for which same-sex unions can arguably qualify), but also to society as a whole (a requirement which, by definition, a same-sex couple cannot fully meet if we honestly acknowledge the ontology of marriage and its implications toward children).  Marriage, the family, and individual responsibility are being further eroded at the very moment they need to be strengthened to begin the type of healing society really needs.

Redefining marriage is not an issue of tolerating a disadvantaged group.  It is about protecting a foundational institution of society that shapes who we are as human beings.  Redefining marriage for an entire society at the compulsion of a minority will result in the institution being distorted and devalued.[37] Ultimately, it will change marriage from a relationship of commitment—especially to children—, to one of convenience primarily for adults.  If President Obama was spouting more than empty eloquence, if this nation is truly committed to seeking a complete and lasting peace, then both should fight to keep marriage as between one man and one woman.  I will adopt one last statement of Mr. Obama’s Nobel speech as both a statement of intent and rallying cry: “We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.”[38] Imposing genderless marriage will not only undermine freedom and prosperity but will entirely mortgage our children’s future at the price of present indulgence.

---

[1] Obama, Barack Hussein, “Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize Accessed December 19, 2009

[2] Official argument against Proposition 8 published in the California Ballot, http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt8.htm

Accessed October 21, 2009

[3] Ibid.

[4] Karen DeYoung, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell, Alfred A. Knopf, 2006, pp. 230-233

[5] There is significant research that supports the idea that homosexual tendencies are not innate nor immutable.  See the research compiled in “Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science,” Salt Lake Tribune, May 27, 2001 AA-6.

See also: http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3239

That being said, I personally believe that there are some—perhaps many—cases that involve unchosen inclinations.

[6] Spitzer. R.L. (2003). “Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation?” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 5 October,  403-417.

[7] Martin Luther King.  As quoted by Barack Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[8] This is not about what consenting adults do in their own home, this is not saying that two people of the same gender can’t associate with straight people, or that they can’t have a relationship with whom they please (all valid concerns in the civil rights movement).  This is about what should constitute marriage.

[9] Else what other “discriminatory” institutions should we get rid of?  Isn’t it discrimination to not allow scrawny kids on the football or wrestling team?  To give a lower grade to a student at school?  To have job qualifications?  The truth is society is obligated to “discriminate” on a lot of counts—the question is simply on what grounds.  If we justify protecting on the basis of sexual behavior, what other behaviors would then cry out to be protected?  Make no mistake, this controversy is over the merits of changing a cornerstone of stable societies, marriage, from an opposite gender association to a genderless one.  A minority should not have the right to arbitrarily impose its preferences as the universal standard.

[10] David Popenoe sums up the consensus succinctly: “Social science research is almost never conclusive . . . yet in three decades of work as a social scientist, I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of the evidence is decisively on one side of the issue: on the whole, for children, two-parent families are preferable to single parent families or stepfamilies.” (Life Without Father, New York, NY: Mark Kessler Books/The Free Press, 1996, 8).

See A. Dean Byrd, “Gender Complementarity and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science Agree” http://www.narth.com/docs/GenderComplementarityByrd.pdf

See Also: “Why Marriage Matters, Second Edition: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” WB Wilcox, W Doherty, N Glenn, L Waite – New York: Institute for American Values, 2005

[11] I often hear the argument that government should simply get out of the marriage business.  I agree that in some areas the government is too involved in the lives of its citizens, but regulating marriage is something that needs to be encouraged and upheld, not only because it is in the best interest of children, but also in light of this reality: humans aren’t perfect.  Like Obama, “I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. . . To say that [upholding traditional marriage by governmental influence] may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

Or, as James Madison argued in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be needed.”  Men are not angels, and taking away all  legal encouragements to marry or stay married—arguing that it is something that couples should decide individually—would have the effect of devaluing it in the eyes of some from just “a piece of paper” to nothing at all.

[12] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[13] The no-fault divorce revolution, for example, has deeply affected how we view the marriage relationship. (See W. BRADFORD WILCOX “The Evolution of Divorce,” National Affairs, FROM ISSUE NUMBER 1 ~ FALL 2009)

[14] See Lynn D. Wardle. 2009. “Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Laws Solutions” ExpressO
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/lynn_wardle/1

[15] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[16] “Pledge of Allegiance,” Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 4, US Code. http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/04C1.txt Accessed January 1, 2010.

[17] Official argument against Proposition 8, voterguide.sos.ca.gov

[18] As the New York Court of Appeals noted: “The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex.” In Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 8 (N.Y. 2006).

[19] Love Makes a Family: Portraits of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Parents and Their Families, Peggy Gillespie. University of Massachusetts Press; (May 1999).

[20] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[21] California Family Code, Section 297.5

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

Accessed October 31, 2008

[22] See Matt Daniels, “Marriage, Society,” Washington Times. April 15, 2004.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040414-090033-8998r.htm

[23] Imagine a believer in traditional marriage engaging in conversation with someone of a different opinion.  If the law says that gay marriage is the norm, then anything that person says from the start will automatically seem discredited.  But then, this has been a trend for years with any belief that can even be connected to religion as being illegitimate.  As John A. Howard has said, nonbelievers “have developed great skills in demonizing those who disagree with them, turning their opponents into objects of fear, hatred and scorn.” See John A. Howard, “Liberty: America’s Creative Power,” Howard Center, 22 June 2009, 6.

[24] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[25] Justice Atonin Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas (539 US 558)

[26] Thomas M. Messner, “The Price of Prop 8” http://www.heritage.org/research/family/bg2328.cfm Accessed January 9, 2010.  For more examples, see Lynn D. Wardle. 2009. “Marriage and Religious Liberty: Comparative Law Problems and Conflict of Laws Solutions” ExpressO Available at: http://works.bepress.com/lynn_wardle/1

[27] Again, Obama’s insight is profound: “I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence.” Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[28] Robert P. George, “On the Moral Purposes of Law and Government”, BYU Forum Address, October 28, 2008.

[29] See More than mischief: Recent activity on Proposition 8
Steve Gehrke.  The Salt Lake Tribune.  Salt Lake City, Utah:Nov 24, 2008

[30] As one state supreme court has declared: “[Family relationships] are ‘natural,’ ‘intrinsic,’ or ‘prior’ in the sense that our Constitutions presuppose them” (re J. P., 648 P.2d 1364, 1373 (Utah 1982))

[31] Gary J. Gates, using U.S. census data estimates that only 1% of couples identify themselves as gay or lesbian

BI-NATIONAL SAME-SEX UNMARRIED PARTNERS IN CENSUS 2000:

A demographic portrait Gary J. Gates, PhD http://www.law.ucla.edu/WilliamsInstitute/publications/Binational_Report.pdf Accessed Jan. 9 2010.

[32] As W. Brad Wilcox stated, “views [about marriage] seep into the popular consciousness and influence behavior — just as they did in the 1960s and ’70s, when academic and professional experts carried the banner of the divorce revolution. ” (W. BRADFORD WILCOX, “The Evolution of Divorce,” National Affairs, FROM ISSUE NUMBER 1 ~ FALL 2009)

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce Accessed October 24, 2009.

[33] (Roger Scruton, “This ‘Right’ for Gays is an Injustice to Children,: Sunday Telegraph. January 28, 2007.)

[34] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[35] JESSE McKINLEY, “San Francisco’s Prostitutes Support a Proposition,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/01prostitute.html?th&emc=th

Published and Accessed October 31, 2008

[36] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

[37] As David Blankenhorn has said, “Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage.  The counties with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage.  The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all.”

(See the analysis of the 2002 International Social Survey at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp?pg=1)

[38] Obama, “Remarks” http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize