2004-03-03T12:17:00.000-08:00

Marriage (Gay or Otherwise)

A modest proposal
Redefining Marriage

What is marriage? The definition of marriage has undergone constant revision over the centuries. From economic benefits to international treaty to legal benefits to family and child rearing (including strict gender roles) to love. We have already redefined marriage through a cultural evolution. Court cases defining marriage seem to reflect the cultural climate of the times, not some vague notion of “natural law.” We have come to a point where marital discrimination based upon age, race, creed, tribe, or caste is seen as just that, an unlawful denial of civil rights. What is to say that this is the right view other than the mores of our culture?

Religion is and rightly should be excluded from the affairs of government. What of culture? It is as mutable as any other creation of man. So it seems practical to me to define what is of benefit to the individual, the family and to the society as a whole with as little curtailment of the natural flow toward the actualization of ideals as possible. These definitions should be recognized to be based on current conditions and data and may change as our perceptions of the world change.

It wasn’t put forth until 1776 that our human rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” At that time, those rights, and most rights applied only to white men, and often only to landed white men. We now see those words as practically natural law and extended to all human beings. This seems right and good to most of us today. Natural law is esoteric and indefinable by imperfect and culturally biased human beings. We can therefore only hope to come close to expressing the will of the hoped-for supreme being by allowing a natural progression toward oneness with that will. This is not religion. It is human nature. It is natural for a human being to strive to express its innate drive to full beingness.

It seems right to protect these human rights with the necessary civil and criminal laws, from the most internationally significant to the most minutely mundane. Human rights should not be detrimental to pairs, groups, or societies of human beings and vice versa. We perform this balancing act with both reason and emotion. We often say that something just “feels wrong.” We must take this into consideration even while using the formidable rational mind for decision making.

The decision before us now is whether to give gays and lesbians the right to marry. Is it something we can give? Or is it a natural right that can only be taken away by the emotion and flawed reason of man? Marriage has actually evolved to be a civil union sometimes sanctified by religious authority. That is what it is. Civil union given the symbolic term “marriage.” It has been most recently held that the term marriage only be applied to the union of one man and one woman. This is a cultural bias, but should not be disparaged on that account. Our culture is who we are as a people, and it is our right to define who we are.

In most states, civil unions between same sex couples are being acknowledged, as they should be. It is becoming commonplace that same-sex couples be given all of the civil advantages of marriage. So it seems to come down to this word “marriage.” It is a powerful and emotional word and implies social sanction of a union as good, beneficial and transcending. Transcending based on the love shared and the fidelity implied. The word as social sanction of the moral and cultural implications of same sex marriage is what the gay community seeks. It is a validation that who they are is okay and really no different from heterosexual couples.

I understand this desire for a group of people vilified for centuries. We have come far, realizing the inhumanity of denying a loving couple the rights of civil society. We are quickly breaking down the barriers to those rights all over the country. But the last barrier to gay marriage may not so easily fall - the importance of one man and one woman, father and mother, to the creation of a family and the healthy upbringing of children.

It is quite true that we do not deny marriage to infertile couples. Rightly so, as they may freely adopt or benefit from infertility treatments and then represent the foundation of a beneficial family structure. It is true that traditional families can be as damaging to children as any other familial structure. It is also true that studies by respected psychological organizations have found no compelling evidence that children raised by a same-sex couple are any different than those raised by traditional parents. This is not a positive declaration for same-sex couples, but a tragic and negative declaration of the failure of the family over the generations. No matter the study, a psychologically healthy father and mother are necessary for the healthiest upbringing possible.

Divorce is now no-fault. Infidelity, adultery is no longer a crime. Single parent households are the norm. Our children carry the burden of parental deficiency and malignancy. There is nothing to mitigate these deficiencies and pathologies. The institution of marriage is on the rocks and our society bears the scars of such a fall. So, what does marriage signify anymore? That instant of love or lust between two people? The mere hope for a lasting union? A finger-crossed declaration of commitment?

I am a progressive liberal, but I do not see the most recent evolution, mutation of marriage as beneficial at all to the individuals, families or society of which they are a part. So this is my modest proposal: a redefinition of marriage.

Civil unions will not be denied any couple for any reason. The designation and license of marriage will be granted only to those couples desiring to start a family, i.e. – bear and raise children. The license will only be granted after marriage counseling and child-rearing classes deemed credible by the state. The state cannot stop unmarried couples from having children, but they can make the benefits of marriage so overwhelming that a couple could not reasonably reject them.

It is so important for a child’s potential and self-actualization to grow up in a healthy environment, consisting of one psychologically healthy mother and one psychologically healthy father. This, in turn, greatly benefits society as a whole as the child grows into a happy, productive, well-adjusted adult. The costs of such a counseling program will be far outweighed by the future benefits.

Is this a “big brother” program? Is this government interfering in a sacred institution? Is government micromanaging the lives of individuals? Not really, as nothing will change for those who do not want to take responsibility for the psychological welfare of their children. They will go on in civil union, perpetuating the dysfunction of the past. Those who truly care about their children will gladly address their personal and parental inadequacies and try to rectify them.

In conclusion, regarding same-sex marriage: A redefinition of marriage will make the argument null and void as no benefits will be withheld and full recognition of union will be given. The emotionally charged term of marriage will be redefined to reflect a commitment to raising psychologically healthy children. This seems a more noble use of the name and institution than to use it as the ratification of a social contract implying the approbation of a population psychically damaged by persecution. Then again, perhaps it is not more noble, for the latter case is a valid and important one. But marriage should not be the means for such absolution.

2004-02-28T07:46:00.000-08:00

Stay tuned for insightful analysis of important social issues.

Common Sense