The gay marriage debate rages on the airwaves and in the court rooms. It is fought on the premise of equal protection, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. The misconception is in thinking that gay unions are equal to heterosexual unions and that opposition to gay marriage is equal to the discrimination of race. Even films such as Remember the Titans, a movie picture about American football and racism, throws in a clip of a young quarterback kissing one of his unsuspecting team mates in the locker room creating an underlying parallel between racism of the 1960s and homosexuals in the late 90’s. Throughout several months I have watched closely the unfolding events, mostly interested in the opinions and views of the country as they began a battle that may not end in this life time. It is a subject that is stirring our country to its very foundation—the family. Patrick Henry, one of the founders of the United States of America, wisely said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”(Henry) The ceremonial covenant of marriage historically precedes government involvement. Marriage ceremonies have always been religious in nature, Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Pagan alike. There have always been sexual or physical lovers where marriage has no part. Though romantic love is most certainly a desirable part of marriage, marriage is not, and never has been at its roots, about romantic love. Marriage at its core is about commitment, lifelong love, and most importantly posterity. 

The primary thrust of the gay agenda is to redefine marriage as simply a committed relationship between two romantically in love individuals. Then it simply becomes an equal protection issue and the gay couple argues they are being discriminated against for a relationship that they claim holds equal commitment and value to the heterosexual relationship. This argument breaks down because it ignores posterity and procreation. Children, in the eyes of history and the eyes of the state, are what differentiate the marriage arrangement from all other consensual adult arrangements. The state has always had a keen interest in the bearing and up bringing of children. Indeed that is why the state got in the business of registering and recognizing marriage in the first place. You don’t see the state registering and giving state benefits to boyfriends and girlfriends or to cohabiting couples. The state does, however, afford special benefits to single parents. In both marriage and parenthood the central interest of the state is the same—children. Now the gay community will argue that they can raise children as well–or better–than the next couple. They will hold up “poster child” examples of gay couples in supposed happy and financially secure situations raising children. I could go into studies illustrating the psychological and social damage on children brought on by gay parenting, but I will focus on the legal and historical aspects of this subject. 

The very point, both legally and historically, is that the natural family would continue whether the government or science got involved or not. On the other hand, the gay family can only exist as a product of government and modern science. Children, the primary interest of the state, come to gay families only by means of legal adoption (a function of the law and state) and by artificial insemination, or some other form of surrogate parentage combined with adoption. These means of formulating the gay family are only realized through science and the law. It is very clear that there is no natural procreative ability between homosexual partners. The procreative ability between heterosexual couples is by contrast perfectly natural, and dates back to the start of known history. Thus, we see that a gay relationship is not naturally equal to a heterosexual relationship. 

The opening statement of the Constitution proclaims that people are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and among these are “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Constitution). The great enlightenment thinker John Locke called this natural law. He believed that natural law was not a creation or product of the state, but was to be protected by the state as these are the natural rights of all men inseparably connected to being human (Locke). Accordingly, without need of a secular description, it is boldly inscribed in our courthouses, on our currency, throughout our capitals; as also it is clearly written in the Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance, and the Constitution; including its oration by the vast majority of the Presidents of the United States, that we are endowed with these rights by God. Homosexuals may argue that they are in the pursuit of liberty and happiness; yet there is no logical means by which they are naturally in the pursuit of life. Indeed we may argue that the gay movement by its very nature is a movement in pursuit of death, its own extinction, for without the intervention of the state and modern science, homosexuality results in the termination of posterity. Thus, from the perspective of science and state we can see that the union of man, women, with their resulting children, and the gay union are polar opposites both in origin and fruit. Any argument to the contrary is hollow and irrational sophistry. The married union and the gay union should be treated unequally because they are unequal. What the homosexual cause is essentially arguing is that they should be given special preferences. They are debating for equal benefits where their relationships are unequal in importance to the future of society. 

 

Inasmuch as posterity is of sufficient importance to the future of the state, the government has always made efforts to encourage the creation of natural families. The bearing and upbringing of children is, by its own nature, economically inefficient in the rules of commerce. If someone has less children they have more time to produce and can consume more goods, more vacations, more cars, more toys, and more clothes with much less effort. Having a family does not have a commercially quantifiable reward. Many place the argument that having children increases responsibility and denies individuals material comforts. This is true, and within the strict terms of money, it is more beneficial to not raise a family. The government has always understood this and has architected policy to counterbalance the natural disincentives to bringing children into life. They did this by getting in to the marriage business and creating special tax break incentives, public education, inheritance laws, and other mechanisms to encourage the responsible upbringing of children. In other words, the upbringing of our future.  

The gay marriage movement is demanding the same perks and benefits and the same recognition as the natural family, even though they have no direct natural connection to the benefits that the natural family provides to the state. In effect what they are asking for is plainly benefits with no responsibility to shoulder the cost. On the whole the gay community does not raise children; those that do are the exception and not the norm (Dailey). The gay lifestyle is an individualistic lifestyle and as previously illustrated, by its very nature does not work to create families. We soon understand President Bush’s concerned statement on marriage, “After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.”(Bush)  

And so we have a real quandary and problem in that the positions on both sides of the argument, when distilled, can never be reconciled. Most of those against gay marriage have more traditional morals and find at the seed of their thinking an unwavering belief in God. In short, they believe homosexuality is sin. If the gay marriage movement succeeds, there will be no place for this type of religious adherent in public life. Because gays have radically and erroneously framed this debate as it were a repetition of the civil rights movements, once the right is gained, there will be no middle ground. If little Johnny goes to school and tells his teacher during health class that his dad and mom told him that for a man to be with another man is a sin abhorrent before God his parents will be labeled as intolerant and hateful bigots. Then the “open minded” officials of the system would be required by law to recognize and teach Jimmy that gay unions are normative and healthy as an alternative to traditional marriage. If the state recognizes gay marriage the secular responsibility of the government will be to socialize and shape the opinions in the minds of its citizens, particularly the children.  

Legally and logically there can be no compromise. This is in fact the very objective of the gay movement, to overturn years of “prejudice” just as the civil rights movement did 40 years ago. And yet this has nothing to do with civil rights. It is about destroying a person’s notion of evil. It is about overturning all sense of right and wrong; and for most no discussion about good and evil in America can be separated from God and religion. I believe a successful gay marriage movement will logically bring about, in time, the greatest period of religious discrimination in the history of our country. The costs to society of recognizing gay marriage are frightening and incalculable. It will only bring about minimal and unwarranted benefits to only a fraction of the people in this country. In fact, one might argue that it will not ever benefit the gays, in that it will only perpetuate the culture of victimization and seek to undermine the power of constitutional law. I ask two questions: are you ready to pay the social and cultural price? Are you ready to see the expansion of benefits for a few rip at the fabric of freedom? For all of our sakes, I hope not. I will not pay that price.  

Note: I was reading some comments on Digg.com today and it brought this article that I wrote to mind. I decided that it would do more good on here than just sitting in a file. I wrote the article in school about two years ago. Over the past two years my arguments on behalf of traditional marriage have shifted from a focus on tax breaks to the argument of moral justification. As long as the majority of the populace of this country believes that it is immoral to practice homosexuality, then there is absolutely no reason for its citizens to morally sanction gay marriage with their laws. This is at the core of what the homosexual movement really wants, for the laws of the United States and the world to justify their actions. They can practice homosexuality. We cannot legally do anything to stop the private practice of homosexuality. We can be great neighbors and treat each other accordingly. But when it comes to creating and redefining laws to sanction gay marriage, we cannot and should not stand for it.  

So what do you think? Give me your thoughts. I will respond to each comment.
Works Cited  

Henry, Patrick. “Give Me Liberty or Give me Death”. Liberty Online Index. 1999. 1 Feb 2004“The Constitution of the United States of America.” Legal Information Institute 14 Mar. 1993. 1 Feb 

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. NY, Hackett Publishing, 1990
Dailey, Timothy PhD. “Homosexual Parenting: Placing children at risk.” Orthodoxy Today 14 Mar. 2004. 5 Feb. 2004 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/26/bush_defines_marriage_as_man_and_woman/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News 

         

Share This

Trackback URI | Comments RSS