The federal court decision last week recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry in Virginia (and three other states) was not a surprise; it was the 24th such decision in a row by a federal court looking at the issue. But each decision understandably sparks a fresh debate among those it affects. The reaction from Virginia opponents of the decision, notably the delegate who co-wrote the overturned amendment, reminded me of the reasons I once opposed gay marriage – and why I changed my mind.
The most dramatic reaction came from Del. Bob Marshall:
Same Sex Marriage – A Judicial Kiss of Death for America
In the long run, advocates and defenders of so-called same sex marriage are their own best undertakers for their hubris in attempting to deny and defy the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” by which nations and cultures around the world have recognized for millennia that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.
The 430-word e-mail statement is not available on Marshall’s web site, so I included it at the end of this post. When you look past the strident language, you find a series of straightforward arguments, namely that gay marriage:
– is against nature
– has been barred for millennia
– will lead to recognition of polygamy and pedophilia
– is not the same as interracial marriage
– can’t produce children
When discussing these, it is crucial to remember the difference between arguing something is morally/religiously wrong and that it should be against the law. We all have things we think are morally wrong, from coveting your neighbor’s things to drinking too much, but only when those behaviors cause some kind of wider harm – a drunk gets behind the wheel – do we allow the government to step in and outlaw them.
So we must be careful when trying to find logical reasons why something we morally object to should be outlawed, as it may lead to arguments which don’t really address the issue. For example, given that nature includes not only gay people but hundreds of species of animals which engage in gay behavior, it seems odd to turn around and deem homosexuality “unnatural.” Gay people have been a part of cultures ranging from ancient Athens to modern Tehran (despite some strange denials), and they clearly have a natural inclination toward getting married, or they wouldn’t be suing for the right to do so.
So “unnatural” really means “unusual,” and this is indeed new territory for many Americans. Hence the “barred for millennia” argument, which unfortunately focuses on how long an idea has been held rather than how good an idea it is. Even the oldest ideas still need justification. This argument also implies that we had everything figured out a few millennia ago and haven’t made any progress since – a sad statement on the human race. Sometimes, as with racism or even democracy itself, it takes mankind a few millennia to figure things out.
Another understandable impulse is to associate something you disapprove of (gay marriage) with something everyone disapproves of (pedophilia) or at least finds kind of weird and is pretty sure shouldn’t be allowed (polygamy). This is the classic slippery slope argument. Marshall mentions both, but polygamy is the only real question here, as pedophilia is so far beyond the line of acceptable human behavior that bringing it up is an almost willful attempt to blow up the entire conversation. And the government has strong arguments as to why it has a compelling interest in keeping marriages at two people, particularly since it has to draw the line somewhere, lest 100 people get married and destroy the line between “marriage” and “mid-sized commune.”
This leaves us with the last two arguments, the two I once followed in being against gay marriage – that such marriages can’t biologically produce children and that arguments for interracial marriage didn’t apply given that was purely an issue of appearance. I had always thought the point of marriage was to have children, but I realized that if childless marriages were really a problem, we wouldn’t allow everyone from post-menopausal women to infertile couples to get married, and I haven’t seen anyone claim they’ve damaged society. We have to be careful with our logic: just because it is better for parents to be married (and it is) doesn’t mean married people have to all be parents.
As for race, it is true that skin color is not sexuality, and gay marriage inherently differs in behavior. But we still need evidence that behavior is harmful. When we return to Marshall’s statement, all we find are vague predictions of doom: gay marriage will “tear the social fabric in ways that can scarcely be imagined.” Well, if you can’t imagine the harm something would do, then you can’t justify a law against it. Could the harm come from children not having a mom and dad? It makes sense that each would be required for a healthy upbringing – but it is also incorrect, as study after study after study shows gay couples are just as good at raising children as heterosexual ones, if not better, perhaps because 50% of the latter become pregnant by accident.
Anyone concerned about the future can look to the diverse set of places which has legalized gay marriage for nearly a decade, including Spain, South Africa, and that most America-ish of countries, Canada. None have been torn asunder by their decision, and neither have any of the numerous American states which have done the same. Spain was the first place I met and interacted with a gay couple, as I was stationed in Europe while in the Army. Until then, virtually all my exposure to openly gay people had been through flamboyant parades, activists, or other people who, in that moment, were representing themselves as gay above all else. But what struck me about this couple was how utterly ordinary they were; their dreams were no different than those of a straight couple. That’s when I started to realize gay marriage was nothing to be concerned about.
One Virginia politician has (accidentally) explained why we shouldn’t be worried: Del. Bob Marshall. His web site contains two sentences analyzing gay marriage:
“A stable society depends in large part upon stable family units. Therefore, we must protect the institution of marriage to keep the basic unit of society, the family, strong.”
Exactly. And the participation of gay people in this institution does just that: strengthens it. They are asking to form “stable family units,” something we value incredibly highly and for good reason. I understand that many Virginians broadly object to homosexuality due to religious belief, and I understand their apprehension about a more secular society. But I ask them to consider where the line is drawn between violating personal beliefs and violating the law, and whether we can justify calling in the government to enforce personal beliefs without some greater showing of harm from allowing gay couples to get married and establish a family.
Full e-mail from Del. Bob Marshall:
Same Sex Marriage – A Judicial Kiss of Death for America
In the long run, advocates and defenders of so-called same sex marriage are their own best undertakers for their hubris in attempting to deny and defy the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” by which nations and cultures around the world have recognized for millennia that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.
Although former Justice William O. Douglas explained that, “The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship,” two Richmond federal judges ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, written in the blood of 600,000+ Americans, was passed to establish same sex “marriage” as a civil right based on immoral behavior including acts that disqualify individuals from giving blood.
Judges Robert Gregory and Henry Floyd are ignorant of the purpose of the 14th Amendment, and arrogant to think they have the moral and legal authority to negate the votes of 1.3 million Virginia voters who gave their approval in 2006 to Virginia’s one-man, one-woman Marshall-Newman Marriage Amendment.
Judges Gregory and Floyd, who opine that two men or two women may “marry” each other do not define what they mean by “marriage,” don’t explain what consummates a homosexual “marriage” or why their decision does not support polygamy or marriages between adults and children “who love each other.” Will three lesbian women in Massachusetts, a “throuple,” move to Virginia to have their aberrant “marriage” relationship sanctioned by Judges Gregory and Floyd?
Massive legal and social coercion will be used by GLBT advocates to secure compliance with their amoral agenda. Photographers and bakers are being fined or forced to provide services to same sex “marriages” against their conscience. The “Human Rights Campaign” is now defending teachers fired from Catholic schools after marrying same-sex partners. Pastors who refuse to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies will be sued. Church charities that feed, clothe, house, and care for the less fortunate will suffer as these lawsuits increase.
The Bob Jones Supreme Court decision upheld IRS denial of tax exempt status because the school violated “public policy” by imposing race distinctions among students. The GLBT lobby claims refusing same-sex marriage is akin to discrimination based on skin color, when in reality sexual behavior is not the same as race. Equality of persons is not the same as equality of behavior.
If judicial elites impose a radical and immoral marriage regime on American citizens in defiance of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” the result would be to tear the social fabric in ways that can scarcely be imagined, nor contained by judicial arrogance.
