Gay Marriage and SocietyElections are nearing and people all over the nation are discussing the California proposition to amend its constitution making marriage legal only between a man and a woman. This is an issue that without question has significant media coverage much of which is good and much of which is distortion. If careful and thoughtful attention is given to the consequences of this decision it is clear that gay marriage is not beneficial to society. For reasons set forth below my position is that gay marriage, not gays, is in fact a detriment to society.
Disclaimer
Let me be clear up front that I do not antagonize gays and nothing said here should be construed in that way. My gay colleagues receive the same respect I give to my straight colleagues. The issue here is about the societal institution of marriage, not a personal decision of sexual orientation. Therefore I will correctly confine my writing likewise.
Net Gain
Decisions of this magnitude should not be made in haste. They must be carefully weighed and measured. All points should be considered and legitimately thought through. What is more, the full consequences of these decisions must be considered. In many cases there will be both good and bad consequences. The question almost always becomes:
"What is the net gain of this decision?"
After careful consideration of the issue from legal, societal, natural and religious viewpoints I must now draw the line in the sand. There is no net gain of gay marriage, there is loss.
Legal Considerations – A Battle of Rights?
I have heard the legal arguments from both sides. As is often the case I was undecided when first approaching the issue. Only after respectful and diligent research did I conclude that gay marriage is not in society’s best interest. I was fortunate enough to watch the advocates for both sides make their oral arguments before the California Supreme Court (see http://www.calchannel.com/MEDIA/0304A.asx). Interestingly the issue here is about the title “marriage” and nothing more.
Currently in the state of California gay domestic partnerships are legally recognized and receive the same protections, rights and benefits as marriages. (See the California Family Code § 297.5 - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5) That means one thing and one thing only:
The only right gays do not have is the right to call their union a “marriage”.
They have the right to enter contracts, to create wills and trusts, to make medical decisions for their partners, to take out mortgages and car loans together, to have joint bank accounts and divide assets when dissolving their partnership and every other right that a married couple has under California law. (The case refers to extremely slight technical differences between domestic partnerships and marriages. These negligible technicalities were so minute they were not relied on. The determining factor rested exclusively on use of the title of “marriage”.)
Some media, corporations, entities and uneducated individuals portray the issue of gay marriage as a significant rights issue in which gays are deprived of substantial rights. There have been comparisons of the gay marriage issue to the civil rights movement. Despite the overwhelming media distortion and indeed the misunderstanding and miseducation of some of the population these allegations are not factually founded.
As the case and law shows, the issue has nothing to do with a body of rights, but rather the one right to use the term “marriage”. Unlike the civil rights issues gays do not have to sit on the back of the bus or drink from different water fountains. Neither are they deprived of the rights of married couples other than the use of the term “marriage”.
(See http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1352578267?bctid=1784553601 for the distinctions between the gay marriage issue and civil rights movement. Note that there are religious views expressed in this video which are not applicable to the legal argument.)
Ultimately what gays seek to do is change the meaning of the term marriage as it stands in the law. This change of meaning will offer little benefit to the gay community. Conversely it will infringe on those who are not gay. The law will require that gay marriage be taught in public schools.
In the end I do not agree that the title change merits imposing gay beliefs on a society that has already establish law otherwise.
Societal Considerations
Secondly, irrespective of the law society itself doesn’t benefit from gay marriage. Ultimately the adoption of gay marriage diminishes the meaning of marriage altogether. It begs the question, How is it that we define marriage? How do we define families? How do we define society? Where exactly do we draw the line? If we take away the clearly established and time tested boundaries we are left with a net loss and the demise of society.
There is considerable empirical evidence to show that children are benefited most when raised by a father and a mother. The gift of social science has from years of research shown that children suffer when they are deprived of a parent. Additionally, the varying influences of male and female parents, that is having two parents of different sex, contributes to the positive social development of a child. Interestingly the influence of fathers contributes to sexual identity in children.
In single family homes often the case is that children know they are missing certain beneficial experiences that would help them in life. This knowledge isn’t founded exclusively in the number of parents, but also in the number of sexes. What more can I say other than that thousands of years of recorded history offer no support that gay families help societal progress. The evidence is to the contrary, history has proven that societies that institute marriage between a man and a woman function extremely well. This holds true regardless of religion, race, culture or nationality. Marriage in its traditional form works and it works well enough to be instituted across all of humanity.
As society propagates from generation to generation we seek to improve it. By depriving the rising generation of the valuable parenting experiences that can only come from marriage between a man and a women we cripple it from the very start. The result is that society as a whole is weakened with each generation that is deprived of the pattern that is most beneficial, traditional marriage.
Natural Considerations
From a mere Darwinist perspective it goes without saying that gay populations cannot survive independently. By definition they are incapable of reproduction. Although medical science has made reproduction possible without sexual intercourse it still requires the use of both sexes and can hardly be classified as a natural process. This is a very powerful pattern for humanity. Our species requires both sexes for existence and our bodies provide clear evidence as to how this reproduction takes place. Indeed the reproductive instinct needed to carry on the population is innate in humans.
I am compelled by nature’s design to support what clearly is meant to be. Men and women are meant for each other. This pattern is exhibited in nearly every species on the planet. Species that don’t use male-female reproduction propagate asexually. Some rare species are even able to switch between sexual and asexual reproduction. Yet despite this interesting variety no species on earth propagates homosexually. I find this evidence compelling, particularly because marriage is intimately linked with human propagation.
Religious Considerations
Lastly I turn to religious considerations. I must reiterate that I do not antagonize gays and nothing said here should be construed to demean or belittle gay people.
Religious views generally consider gay behavior sinful. This view separates the behavior from the person seeking to uplift the person and destroy the behavior simultaneously. Under Christianity each person is considered an invaluable child of God, equal with all others. As I am Christian (Mormon) I believe this whole heartedly.
I now put away the logical reasoning, the fact finding, the evidence gathering and literary devices to conclude with my pure testimony of what I know in my heart to be true.
I considered the issue of gay marriage very seriously over sleepless nights because I love all people and wanted to make sure that my vote was cast in a direction that was pleasing to God, who also loves all people with a love beyond comprehension. I am confident with my decision that gay marriage is not appropriate.
Gay behavior is an addiction and trap like any other addiction and trap we pass through. One who practices gay behavior is no different from one who practices any other sinful behavior. Both are loved by God who seeks to teach them how to achieve the greatest happiness possible. Gay behavior, like other sin, will ultimately lead to sorrow. It is my prayer that humanity will return to God and experience the greatest joys possible. Gay marriage will only detract from that end.
For these reasons I vote yes on proposition 8.
Alan's Blog:
http://alanclindsay.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-marriage-and-society.html
For these reasons I vote yes on proposition 8.
Alan's Blog:
http://alanclindsay.blogspot.com/2008/10/gay-marriage-and-society.html
Additional Info: www.preservingmarriage.org and www.protectmarriage.com
I was unaware that I married a "suit and tie" kind of guy until Alan was required to buy one this week to wear during his oral arguments in his law classes. I'm pretty impressed because he made an excellent choice, and I wasn't even there to help him shop this time! He's decided he loves wearing quality clothes. And the verdict is in. . . he looks hot.
