[This post was updated on June 29, 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was constitutional.]
While we know there are biblical reasons the Supreme Court shouldn’t have recognized same sex marriage, are there any non-biblical reasons?
Yep, there are.
And once again, I want to make it abundantly clear that the points I present aren’t meant to demean gays or even outlaw the homosexual lifestyle. We’re all Americans and I hope we all can not only peacefully and respectfully dialogue on this matter, but live together with good will toward one another in spite of our differences. That’s my heart as I write this.
Here’re the Quick Points to consider if you don’t have the time to read the entire blog:
- We only want what’s fair: Actually, some heterosexuals are not treated “fairly,” being prohibited by the state to get married. Some marriage relationships (e.g., parent-child, sibling-sibling, adult-child, polygamy, etc.) are discriminated against by the state, regardless of whether the people who want to be married love each other.
- We’re being discriminated: if there are entitlement and benefit distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual couples that legitimately need to be resolved, is legalizing same-sex marriage the only way of doing so?
- We have a constitutional right to be married: The constitutional foundation for same sex marriage is based on the 14th amendment. The problem is, the 14th amendment wasn’t intended to support gay marriage.
- What is marriage? Marriage is a biologically natural, long term pairing between a man and a woman that is protected, privileged and celebrated by culture because of the unique and vital role it plays in civilization (note the lack of any reference to a government sanction or affirmation of marriage)
- Objections to what is marriage:
Who says the above definition is the right one? If we allow marriage to be defined according to people’s preferences, it loses all definition – marriage becomes meaningless (i.e., without meaning, definition, or description).
Marriage Has Always Been Changing While it’s true there are variations on the marriage theme (age of consent, number of spouses, marrying for love/marrying out of contract, etc.), that doesn’t mean the theme itself is invalid. All of these variations still hold true to the description of a biologically natural, long term pairing of a man and a woman (not a man and a man).
We Can Make Marriage However We Want A society can’t redefine marriage because it’s inherently defined — societies are essentially groups of families, and families are formed through procreation, and procreation comes about through men and women getting married and having children.
What’s the Harm in Redefining Marriage? Personal freedom and beliefs are being eroded in the following areas:
1) personal liberty; 2) parental rights; 3) religious freedom; 4) protection from government coercion; 5) political/legal representation, and; 6) social morality
With that said– (this’ll be lengthy, so thank you for your careful and honest attention)
We Only Want What’s Fair
One argument given by same-sex marriage proponents is that gay couples only want what’s fair; they only want what heterosexual couples already have. This is a compelling argument. Who here in America doesn’t want what’s fair for his fellow Americans?
But the fact is, not all heterosexuals have the right to get married (yet?). For example, the state forbids adult siblings from getting married, or parents and their adult children, or polygamists. Is it fair that these individuals be barred from getting married, regardless how much they love each other? (Actually, I kinda shudder as I ask this question; I think the time is coming soon when the “incestgamists” and polygamists will want their day in court, too — and win.)
We’re Being Discriminated Against By Not Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Another argument given is that same-sex couples are discriminated against because they don’t receive the same entitlements as straight couples.
On this I agree that same-sex couples do not receive all the entitlements/benefits as straight couples. I concede that point. However, whatever entitlement and benefit discrepancies that need to be resolved between heterosexual and homosexual couples, I would ask, is legalizing same-sex marriage the only way of doing so?
We Have a Constitutional Right to be Married
My thanks to Dr. Frank Turek who addresses the constitutionality of same sex marriage in his article. Here are two of his main points:
- Intent – The purpose of the 14th Amendment was 1) to give citizenship and rights to the newly freed slaves; 2) provide for full representation of former slaves; 3) prevent states from discriminating against them; 4) prevent former Confederates from holding civil or military office, and; 5) validate and honor the Union war debt but not Confederate war debt. Not one of the five sections of the 14th Amendment was intended to address same sex marriage.
- The Constitution is silent on marriage – Actually, it’s not silent. This is what it says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (the 10th Amendment). Quite simply, the Constitution gave the federal government limited and enumerated powers. All other government powers (including laws regarding marriage) belonged to the states and the people.
To quote Turek, “While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.” Obviously, it didn’t.
For additional commentary on the Constitution and same sex marriage, I recommend Herbert Titus and William Olson’s article “Why the 14th Amendment is no Mandate for Same-Sex Marriage.”
What Is Marriage?
These and other arguments, however, don’t answer the fundamental question: what is marriage? To answer that from a “non-biblical” perspective, I submit the following:
Marriage is a natural, long term pairing between a man and a woman that is protected, privileged and celebrated by culture because of the unique and vital role it plays in civilization (note the lack of any reference to a government sanction or affirmation of marriage)
As a rule, as a group, and by nature, marriage produces the next generation of a society – that’s why cultures, communities, and governments have actively supported this pairing more than any other social pairing. It’s because it’s a natural institution that it cannot be redefined; thus, the whole argument about redefining marriage really is a moot point.
Objections to What Is Marriage
1. Who Said You’re Right!? You might argue, “Just because you say that’s the definition doesn’t make it so.”
I agree, and let’s run with that argument for a bit – if the definition I presented isn’t the most accurate definition of marriage, what is? Is it your definition? Is it based on majority rule? This line of argument leads to the inevitable conclusion that marriage can be defined and redefined any number of ways – which leads to the problem that once to you define marriage according to people’s preferences, it loses all definition – marriage becomes meaningless (i.e., without meaning, definition, or description). So now that same-sex relationships are legal, why shouldn’t we legalize multiple-partner relationships? Or close relative relationships? Or adult-child relationships? Or human-animal relationships? (I know some of you are going to go absolutely bananas over my last two hypotheticals…) Marriage must mean something specific. However, if there is a better definition than the one provided, I’d love to hear it.
2. Marriage Has Always Been Changing “Wait a minute! Marriage has forever been redefined. How can you say there’s only one definition for marriage?”
You’re right that there are variations on the marriage theme (age of consent, number of spouses, marrying for love/marrying out of contract, etc.), but that doesn’t mean the theme itself is invalid. All of these variations still hold true to the description of a natural, long term pairing of a man and a woman (not a man and a man).
3. We Make Marriage However We Want Some argue that marriage is a social construction – that is, marriage is made by society. Therefore, if it’s made by a society, it can also be changed by a society. While this seems to make sense, there’s a logical problem with this line of reasoning. The problem is before we can create a social construction, we have to have a society, and societies come about when people procreate; procreation requires men and women, and it’s the union of men and women that constitute marriages. So before you can get a society to construct anything, you first need men and women to get married and make the families that are the foundation of societies.
Now this doesn’t mean that childless couples aren’t married, please don’t misunderstand the point. The exception (couples that cannot procreate) doesn’t disqualify the rule (couples who procreate). As I wrote earlier: as a rule, as a group, and by nature, marriage produces the next generation of a society.
4. So What? What’s the harm? With same-sex marriage legalized, how is that going to hurt me? I see six areas where personal freedom and beliefs are being eroded:
- Eroding personal liberty – The internet dating site eHarmony (a privately-owned business) was sued because it didn’t allow gays to utilize their primary site (even though a secondary site was provided)
–A Christian photographer was sued when he refused to photograph a gay couple’s wedding
–A restaurant owner was sued for backing out of a gay wedding
—Innkeepers were sued for refusing to host a wedding reception
- Eroding parental rights – David Parker did not want his 5-year-old son to be exposed to same-sex family education at school; this became a full-blown legal battle (see also: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165253,00.html)
- Eroding religious freedom – Because Illinois (and other states) have mandated that the Catholic Church allow adoptions to same-sex couples, the church has pulled out of adoption services in those states
- Eroding protection from government coercion – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel blasted Chick-Fil-A for their support of traditional marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage; additionally, a Chicago alderman said he would oppose Chick-Fil-A’s plan to expand in Chicago
- Eroding political/legal representation – When the government affirms gay marriage, it’s affirming something I completely disagree with, thus eroding my political and legal representation. Now obviously SSM proponents will argue that because the government doesn’t affirm gay marriage, the government is eroding their political/legal representation. That’s true. However, my point here isn’t whose position ought to be affirmed by the government, but the fact that gay marriage affects me personally by affecting my representation.
- Eroding social morality – Maybe the biggest response I can give to the “so what?” question is that government affirmation of SSM erodes our social morals. Now I understand those who disagree with me would argue on the contrary; in fact, they’ll say this will strengthen our social morality because it’s promoting truer equality. I can understand where they’re coming from, but my point right now isn’t to defend my position, but simply to lay out the fact that I really do, in my heart of hearts, have this belief.
So with SSM now officially sanctioned by the Supreme Court here, quite honestly, is how I’ve been affected:
— I felt defeated and frustrated
— I feel grief over the wrong direction I believe this country is taking
— I’m even more concerned about the kind of world my children will live in
— I’ve spent more time on Facebook discussing this issue
— I’ve turned even more to the Bible for consolation and encouragement
I can hear some responding, “Really, Chris? Is that all you got? That’s just a bunch of emotionalism!” Well, I have to admit, in a way, you’re right. Same sex marriage hasn’t given me shingles or made me homeless or made my food taste bland. There’s nothing I can point to physically to show the negative effects of SSM on me. But if you’ll indulge me, may I ask: how would you feel if you believed the government affirmed something you thought was morally wrong? This is, what I believe, the reason why both sides are hootin’ n’ hollerin’ so much: one side sees this as justice realized and the other sees this as state-sanctioned immorality.
This leads to the ultimate question regarding this issue: whose morality ought we as a society follow?
Conclusion
Not a single Bible verse was referenced, not a single mention of Jesus was pronounced (except for now), not a single word of condemnation was heaped on the homosexual lifestyle. And no, this blog isn’t advocating that those supporting same-sex marriage ought to locked up or kicked out of the country or harassed or demeaned. Not at all!
It does mean there are good reasons (apart from the Bible) to support traditional marriage as the only type of marriage affirmed and acknowledged by the state. Can gays go to a church or other center of faith and get “married”? Sure, if they want to do that, they already have the freedom to do so.
But must it be a matter of state affirmation?
[Much of the above comes from Greg Koukl’s presentation “Engaging the Same-Sex Marriage Debate“]
[This blog was originally part of my Facebook Notes when California’s Proposition 8 (the state constituional amendment affirming marriage as between a man and a woman) was being debated. I’ve updated it since then]
Patterson's Perceptions 