I know this is a touchy subject and one I tackle unwillingly. To clarify, the only times I ever show a hint of hatred toward anyone is 1) when I’m hungry, and the person sitting next to me who won’t stop clicking their damn pen and 2) against whomever Notre Dame is playing against on fall afternoons.
Today, a friend, among many, posted an article on gay marriage on his Facebook. We all know what’s going on in the Supreme Court this week with DOMA. Some group will be disappointed, or perhaps angry, no matter where the chips fall. And since we live in the great age of social media, we all have the ability to weigh in through Facebook, Twitter, the Post comment sections – the list goes on.
The conversations, when civil, are good – they force me to ponder: “What do I really believe? And why?”
For this reason, I am writing this blog post to explain why we should not redefine marriage as it stands – between a man and a woman.
Underneath my friend’s post, a commenter thoughtfully pointed out:
The Due Process Clause protects fundamental rights while the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination. Seen as a denial of a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, the case for marriage equality for same-sex couples should be obvious.
Putting on my never-worn lawyer cap here, I gather the equation he is making here is: A (Due Process) + B (Equal Protection) = C (Gay Marriage). Ugh, this is probably going to get confusing. Pushing onward, anyway. The protection of fundamental rights is, as the Declaration of Independence affirms, entitled by “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” That is to say, a right is so “uhhhh, um, yeah, duuuuuuh” that it is naturally self-evident. So yes, I agree with A.
In regards to discrimination (B): If we are talking about the specific definition of “a prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment” then I also believe B. In order to make right judgments, decisions must be rooted in truth, which prejudice distorts. However, the key to finding out if the problem’s answer is actually “Gay Marriage,” is to qualify A.
My first questions are: Is marriage a fundamental right? Why or why not?
“Fundamental” means basic, “the foundation” – in this case, of society. All of us, fundamentally, are the product of a man and of a woman. No human person has fundamentally come from same-sex partners. Thus, it could be said humans have a “fundamental” right to a mother and father. This trumps the “right” to marriage. Looking at marriage as a legal issue, it is a privilege, not a right. A privilege the government should regulate lightly, for sure, but regulate nonetheless for the good of society.
The government has leeway in protecting that privilege through laws, but NOT to redefine it. This includes (among other examples): 1) age, 2) relationship by blood, 3) blood types, 4) mental stability. Because: 1) children should be protected from being exploited into marriage with a gross old person 2) genetic disorders occur 3) ditto and 4) a contract must be made with a sound mind in order to be a contract. In sum, I would say government is protecting the best interests of society — not only of present-day members (such as young children who could be exploited) but also of future ones (children who could be born with genetic diseases because of a close blood relationship of their parents).
On a different tack: It is reasonable to say that no one should be refused to drive a car, no matter their color, creed, sexual orientation, hair type, and yes, even football allegiances (I allow this last item begrudgingly) because fundamentally these things aren’t related to driving a car. Barring someone from them based on those things would be discrimination. However, that does mean “Driving Equality for All!”?
No. Hopeful drivers must meet certain reasonable qualifications that are fundamental or foundational to driving a car — sight, age, proper alcohol levels, mental stability showing responsible handing (e.g., passing a driver’s test). If one of these reasonable requirements is not met, is it discrimination on the government’s part to withhold a driver’s license? Or, is the government preserving the best interests of society? Who of us wants a blind man driving a car?
But just because a blind man cannot drive a car doesn’t mean I do not wish him every means of transportation available to him, to be made available. I want those around him to care for him, help him on the bus, help him find the train terminal, treat him with the highest dignity due to him as a being created by God. If someone were to mock him for his inability to drive a car, I’d slug that person in the face and feel no remorse.
And wouldn’t we all agree the government should support the blind man in getting transportation that enables him to be independent, while maintaining the best interests of society? That truly loving the blind man involves admitting his limitations. Does changing the definition of “blind” make him more qualified to drive?
In the same regard, the government should set parameters, with compassion and understanding to all parties, in the best interests of society for marriage. But redefining the MOST core value of marriage, sexual complementarity, that has been set for centuries is a very huge, huge, HUGE cultural swing with completely unforeseeable consequences. In fact, sexual complementarity IS THE ONLY core value of marriage existing through the ages, through all sorts of reform. Women used to be slaves. Men would have more than one wife, or a woman multiple husbands. Children were bargaining chips for political marriages. Not every couple has children. Not every couple will have children.
Nowadays, strides in America have been made to eliminate many of these problem areas. Women have equal rights. Couples pledge faithfulness to one person at a time. Marriage (hopefully) isn’t seen as a contract to breed the best children or create a political alliance. We all strive to be love and to be loved to the best of our ability. There are these, and many other important values of marriage that hopefully exist, but are not necessary to exist for marriage to be legal. In the laws of nature, a blind man cannot see, no matter how much we love him or wish him to see. In the laws of nature, men and men, or women and women, are not sexually complementary, no matter how much they love each other. Therefore, marriage, which through the ages has related to two sexually complementary beings, the foundation and fundamental structure that every person has a right to be born in, shouldn’t be redefined. Rather than focusing on changing something fundamental that is already under attack, I wish we were concentrating more on healing families, eliminating poverty, crime and abuse … to come to a place in society where commitments are honored, people are respected, children have a mom and dad who care about them and nurture them. An unrealistic ideal, perhaps, but shouldn’t laws reflect the ideal, not the “make the best out of this situation” scenario?
My final, scattered thoughts: Do all my thoughts above that mean I think gay or lesbian couples do not love each other? Of course not. I can see that they do. Do I think gays or lesbians would be horrible parents? Of course not. All of us are called to be caring and compassionate, especially to the most innocent among us, children. Does that mean I think people shouldn’t receive rights and benefits because of their sexual orientation? Of course not. But I think there are other ways of solving this issue without the government getting involved in a drastic redefinition and refocusing of the most basic and tested building block of our society.
(NOTE: This piece is purely my opinion and not reflective of any views but my own. Keep comments civil or they will be deleted. Finally, I didn’t come to my conclusions through any religious arguments, so please keep those out of the combox as well or they will go *poof*.)
Read Full Post »
BestDazeOfMyLife 