Let me ask a question or two.
Since humanity knows so many different forms of meaningful relationships – between friends, siblings, cousins, college roommates...pick one – why is it that every society throughout human history has bestowed special favor and status on the relationship between men and women who commit to one another for life? Why is it that this unique relationship – and no other – has been called “marriage?”
Here’s the answer: It is because every society has seen the value of formalizing the tie between men and women who bear and raise children. The California Supreme Court dealt a blow to this reality last week when it legalized same sex marriage. Their reckless and overreaching decision represents social and cultural regression, not progress.
We’ve spent all of human history figuring out the best ways to order our lives to increase human flourishing. And virtually every society in human history has concluded that one of the keys to this is elevating marriage between men and women to a special class of relationship – the reason being that the future of society depends on the well-being of children, and the well-being of children is largely determined by the relationship between those who conceived and bore them.
The California Supreme Court has arrogantly concluded that every society in human history got it wrong and that history doesn’t matter. With this ruling (and others), marriage has gone from being about the needs of children to being about the desires of adults.
Now, let’s be clear. This issue is not about whether or not homosexuals are equal citizens deserving of equal rights. Of course they are. And it’s not a question about whether or not they can form meaningful relationships. They do. But gays and lesbians already have the right to form meaningful relationships, as we all do. We just don’t call every important relationship we have “marriage.”
Also, bear in mind that the right to marry has always come with restrictions. Nobody has ever been able to marry whomever they want. We can’t marry a close relative; we can’t marry someone who’s currently married to someone else; we can’t marry someone who’s underage; we can’t marry someone of the same gender; etc. In fact, advocates for same sex marriage are willing to maintain most of those restrictions.
So, in other words, we’re not debating that a line should be drawn in determining who can and cannot marry, but simply where to draw it. But to understand where that line should be drawn, we must understand the historic public purpose of bestowing a special status to the committed and procreative (and often romantic) relationship between a man and a woman.
It’s about kids. And it’s about human wellbeing and the common good. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, California Chief Justice Ronald George was asked about the majority opinion he wrote. He compared the battle to gain same-sex marriage to the battle to strike down laws that forbade interracial marriage. But there are fundamental differences between these cases. Courts that ruled that people cannot be prevented from marrying based solely on their race affirmed our historical understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman. Essentially, anti-interracial marriage statutes were not only racist laws that demeaned people, they also redefined marriage by making race a determining factor in whether or not a couple could marry. In the same article, George also mused about the evolution in his thinking and said, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”
Based on history, sociology and anthropology, it is doubtful he’s done the right thing. Moreover, George needs to be reminded that risk taking is not in a justice’s job description. His interview clearly shows that he made this decision as a lawmaker and social engineer, not a jurist, and that the Constitution and precedent had very little to do with his decision.
George is not just taking a risk politically; he is taking a risk for all of us. His ill-conceived notion of egalitarianism makes him think that this ruling will have benign effects on the culture. But how does he know redefining marriage will do no harm? Why should he – or any of us – assume that gender is not essential to the family? Frankly, this assumption drove legal changes a generation ago that had disastrous effects.
Forty years ago, advocates for no-fault divorce told us that it was simply love, and not family structure, that made a family. They told us that even though we didn’t have any experience with widespread divorce, it would all work out fine.
Well, a generation of experience with millions of divorced families shows us it wasn’t such a good idea. Reams of social science research strongly suggest that the divorce experiment hurt children and adults, badly.
And now this.
Not only does same sex marriage reiterate the false notion that family structure doesn’t matter, it also eliminates the right of children to have both a mother and a father and says the unique gifts each gender brings to childrearing are superfluous. (You know, my wife can do a lot of things. She is gifted, smart and compassionate. She could pursue any profession and succeed. But there is at least one thing she can never be, and that’s a dad. Just as I, under no circumstances, could be a mom.)
Look, we will always have motherless and fatherless children, but in most cases these are due to circumstances that are less than ideal (divorce and unwed childbirth for example) or tragic (death). But a loving and just society never intentionally deprives children of either a mother or father. Same-sex marriage does precisely that.
Georgia Family Council is a non-profit organization that works to strengthen and defend the family in Georgia by equipping marriage advocates, shaping laws, preparing the next generation and influencing culture. For more information, go to www.georgiafamily.org, 770- 242-0001, stephen@gafam.org.
